abeja_transparente

MESAS PANEL APROBADAS

Para desplegar el contenido de cada mesa y poder registrarte, selecciona el símbolo + o haz clic sobre el título del panel de tu interés. De igual manera, puedes usar el campo de búsqueda para localizar la mesa por nombre del coordinador (es), título o número de panel.

TÍTULO DE LA MESA PANELPANELCOORDINADOREMAILCO-COORDINADORESRESUMEN CORTORESUMENREGÍSTRATE
26Forced migration, precariousness and knowledge regimes23MIrian Alves de Souzamirian.uff@gmail.comLeonardo SchiocchetForced migration has various dimensions - symbolic, moral or material - has been objectivized as national (IDPs) or transnational, and has been indexed through different categories of precariousness, such as gender, ethnic, national, sexual, generational, occupational, cultural, class, or religious belongings. This panel focuses on the asymmetry of power relations entailed in refugee regimes, and forms of governmentality cutting across the diverse transits, fluxes, and movements, such as those labelled family reunion, expatriation, repatriation, or resettlement. This panel aims to bring together academic work on various forms of forced migration to discuss such labels as indexation practices tied to regimes of knowledge that simultaneously legitimize actions on forced migrants and often delegitimize their own knowledge regimes. We especially encourage proponents to consider indexation processes involved in the production of localized subjects through categories of precariousness. We will consider proposals aiming to deal with either single empirical cases or a larger set of refugee regimes.Forced migration has various dimensions - symbolic, moral or material - has been objectivized as national (IDPs) or transnational, and has been indexed through different categories of precariousness, such as gender, ethnic, national, sexual, generational, occupational, cultural, class, or religious belongings. This panel focuses on the asymmetry of power relations entailed in refugee regimes, and forms of governmentality cutting across the diverse transits, fluxes, and movements, such as those labelled family reunion, expatriation, repatriation, or resettlement. This panel aims to bring together academic work on various forms of forced migration to discuss such labels as indexation practices tied to regimes of knowledge that simultaneously legitimize actions on forced migrants and often delegitimize their own knowledge regimes. We especially encourage proponents to consider indexation processes involved in the production of localized subjects through categories of precariousness. We will consider proposals aiming to deal with either single empirical cases or a larger set of refugee regimes.Regístrate
27Anthropology of work: theoretical-ethnographic challenges24Rosângela Corrêarosangelaantro@gmail.comPatricia Mejia Torres, Hernán PalermoThe potential of anthropology for addressing social daily life allows advancing in the identification and problematization of social, political and cultural articulations that are structured around the work situation; opening fields of interrogation on the relations between work and collective of workers.We consider that the anthropological approach to transformations in the world of work provides a fundamental perspective when addressing ruptures and continuities in business policies; state policies and international institutions; the organization of production and work processes; the groups of male and female workers and the deep traces left by the workplace –or the lack of work- in the social life of the subjects. The ways in which the bid to rebuild corporate hegemony over the labor sector has been resolved require an exhaustive analysis of the social and cultural control devices that have systematically sought to discipline workers. The call for the panel is addressed to all those researchers who, from anthropology, have addressed these problems. In this sense, we are interested in deepening the debates on the different forms of use and contracting of the workforce - wage earners, self-employed, family work, formal or informal associative enterprises, reconverted workers, flexible workers in maquiladoras, workers precarious, migrant, unemployed (organized and unorganized); new sectors of workers - in rural and urban areas. Likewise, we are interested in those investigations that account for different issues of approach to work and workers such as large companies and community relations; the work process as a space for dispute; the debates on the cultural question in its labor aspect, the feminization of work, the construction of subjectivities, loyalties, fidelities and diverse identities. It is also essential to advance in the knowledge about the historical and current forms of action, resistance, organization and struggle of the workers; the processes of development and internationalization of capital; relocation of production and the specificity of the maquilas. Likewise, it is important to analyze the transformations that information technologies and new businesses are producing in the world of work around platform economies. We consider with special attention those investigations that address these issues in relation to the different perspectives of class, ethnicity, nationality and gender. Within the latter, we are interested in highlighting the importance of studies on masculinity (s) and feminization in the world of work. Class, ethnicity, nationality and gender are categories that result from different positions in power relations, which must be understood in a relational way and in constant tension. We also want to include issues such as violence at work, productive restructuring and new forms of work organization, environment and work. In the same way, we cannot ignore the diverse and varied consequences that the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic caused and continues to cause. Today, the diagnoses of the Social Sciences of Work as a whole are presented as fundamental, trying to understand the effects of the pandemic on labor relations, changes in working conditions, changes in the intensification of working hours, etc. Likewise, we consider it necessary to deepen the debates that contribute analytical categories and different theoretical / methodological approaches to the proposed problematization field.Regístrate
28Biocultural heritage and sacred places: relationships beyond intangible [Comission on Immaterial Heritage].25Minerva López Millánminelopezmillan@gmail.comVicente Torres LezamaCatalogues are often understood around the concept of tangible and intangible cultural heritage, on the basis of UNESCO´s (The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) object centered assessment, to such a degree that its mere enlisting of objects and practices withing a globalized ensemble suffices for its consideration as such. This view belongs to a general context of intentions of privatization from governmental projects of high impact, which mean to divest territories from indigenous populations. Legislation opposes such a view from the exercise of cultural right of the use of water. Even more, in the case of the so called biocultural heritage and sacred places, the idea of intangible, which is afterall, object based, obscures and limits possible ways of understanding and realizing the relationships between social actors, objects and surrounding entities, which may include water (rivers, lagoons, streams, springs), as well as different dynamic attributes from plants, animals, mountains and rocky formations. This thematic table means to provide a space for reflection about the notion of heritage, biocultural heritage and sacred places. All research proposals concerned with such matters are welcome.The main goal of this thematic table is to listen and meet several anthropological research experiencies around the relationship that social actors have with the entities of their environment, which allow us a critical reflection on the concept of intangible cultural heritage. Although, from the term biodiversity a large amount of vegetal, animal species and so called natural resources are legitimezed and defended, it becomes necessary to know other forms of relationships between surrounding entities from the perspective of indigenous peoples, whose thought goes beyond the intangible.Regístrate
30Religion and spirituality in everyday life26Cecilia Guimarães Bastosceciliagbastos@gmail.comMaría Pilar García BossioThis panel seeks to put in dialogue research focusing on religious and spiritual practices that take place outside institutional frameworks and in people’s everyday lives. We are interested in the presence of new spiritualities in daily life, be them understood as re-readings or even breaks from religious traditions. Typically, the category of spirituality refers to reinterpretations of spiritual disciplines from external historical-spatial contexts. However, here we understand them also as appropriations of institutionalised religions that are practiced outside their typical frameworks and, also, possible analog configurations, but which are understood, implicitly or explicitly, as not religious. We invite researchers to submit papers that contribute to the reflection about the places and contexts where religious and spiritual experiences take place in contemporary societies, which will contribute to widen the limits of what we call “religion” today. We expect to receive contributions that analyse some of the following topics: 1. Manifestations of religious nature or resemblance, such as sacralisations and rituals, that take place outside “temples” and in everyday life. 2. Interpretations and appropriations of religious and/or spiritual symbols in non-traditional practice contexts. 3. Uses and negotiations of the categories of religion and spirituality in specific contexts. 4. Ways in which the religious and/or spiritual shape or transform tangible or intangible heritage in public and private space.The panel's proposal is to bring together research that would discuss the opposition between religion and spirituality, as well as the integration of spiritual practices and experiences with other dimensions of social life. We are interested in approaches to life-building processes that imply a dialogue between appropriate beliefs and values not only in spiritual contexts but related to health, political practices, tangible and intangible cultural heritage, and the use of free time. If researches discussing spirituality highlight its visibility in the public space, those that focus on the emergence of sanctuaries, pilgrimages and religious tourism practices also challenge the substantive distinctions between the religious and the secular. We seek to bring together works that discuss spirituality, referring both to personal processes of searching for vital meaning that relativise the notion of divinity and the approach of a whole series of conceptions and practices commonly derived from religious contexts or associated with spirituality and which nevertheless challenge the categories and theories of the social sciences of religion.Regístrate
32Social Movements and their Cultural Manifestations: Theoretical and Practical Questions27Diego Marques Pereira dos Anjosdiego.anjos@ifgoiano.edu.brRyan Knight, Marcus Vinícius Costa Conceição, Gabrielle AndradeOn one hand, we are experiencing the globalization of contemporary society with the increasing reach of social movements throughout the world, either through the dissemination of their politics or through the spread of their modes of cultural expression. On the other hand, we have anthropology, which provides us the tools to study social movements and their intimate relationship to culture. With that, this panel aims to discuss the cultural manifestations of social movements, bringing anthropological perspectives to bear on the subject. Not only does anthropology offer us tools for thinking theoretically about social movements and culture, it also offers us important methodological approaches to the subject. For example, New Social Movement (NSM) theory, which has gained strength in Latin America since the 1990’s, engages extensively with the concept of "culture" to aid in our understanding of the interconnectedness of social movements and cultural phenomenon. With the influence of anthropological perspectives, bringing culture more directly into the study of social movements, we can begin the development and reworking of concepts and methodologies in order to better understand not only social movements, but also their cultural manifestations. In this way, the study of forms of cultural expression such as hip hop or graffiti, might help in understanding black or student movements for example. While there is a growing discussion around social movements from an anthropological perspective, it is fundamental that these discussions be stimulated further in scientific events.This panel proposes a discussion around the cultural manifestations of social movements, as well as the theoretical and methodological foundations available in the social sciences for studying them. This panel works from an interdisciplinary perspective, bringing a cultural approach derivative of anthropology into a discussion with other social science approaches to social movements, including sociology and political science. For this, it is important to make clear how we understand social movements. For Jensen (2014) the organization of a social movement is based in the activity of the social group in which it is embedded. Thus, "a social group does not mean an organized collective of individuals, but a group of people who have something in common" (Jensen 2014, 130). Thus, a social movement emerges from the internal and/or external needs of a group, since a social group "only exists within a social relationship, and therefore its movement is motivated by its own needs in relationship to society as a whole" (Jensen 2014, 130). According to Jensen (2014), these needs are responsible for the formation of social movements. That is, social movements emerge from specific historical conditions, grounded in the needs of the society where the social group is located. In light of this, one of the principal factors in the formation of a social movement is culture. This is also the starting point for anthropological studies of the subject. According to Goldman (2007), it was in the 1990s that work began around new cultural movements. Themes that had been previously ignored began to come into focus. For example, identity, subjectivities, consciousness, values, objectives, theoretical elaborations, ideas, interpretations, worldviews, etc. Within the context of the contemporary historical conjuncture, the debate on the cultural manifestations of social movements is even more relevant in thinking about the ongoing transformations of society. This panel proposes to participate in that discussion with a mixture of theoretical, empirical and methodological contributions.Regístrate
33Paths to Build Legitimate Memories: Cultural Heritage at the Centre of the Socio-Political Order [Commission on Urban Anthropology]28Marcello Mollicamarcello.mollica@unime.itArsen Hakobyan, Lara SemboloniConflict and memory play a major role in maintaining identity, belonging and good governance. However, they do not always overlap, while the tensions produced by their narrative and counternarrative often lead to irreconcilable outcomes. Cultural appropriation becomes fundamental in the construction of the political (and religious) physical space. But how are heritage and its memory constructed? How does this construction influence the way conflict over memory evolves? Heritage memory is representative of the culture of belonging. Focusing on urban settings, this panel aims to shed light on the determinants in the contemporary conflicts; particularly those that arise when heritage memory is denied. Drawing on mainstream anthropological literature on legitimacy and legitimation (Pardo 2000; Pardo & Prato eds 2018, 2019), the panel aims to answer the following questions: Can a diachronic approach help to explain the link between belonging and heritage, and the ways in which contemporary narratives are mobilized, legitimized and employed? What is the genesis of the ‘heritage making’ process? How does this process impact the nation state in pluri-ethnic and multi-religious societies? Do cultural institutional and consociational models built upon historical experience remain in equilibrium, or do they falter due to the established order’s loss of control over the physical space? How is heritage managed when it is located in places that no longer belong to the original owners? Institutional, religious and political aspects can be articulated in conflicting ways and at different levels. However, besides the different forms that heritage can take, its narratives impact everyday life. It is therefore important to understand the constraints that can explain cultural changes and legitimate contemporary narratives, spanning from time to space, from syncretism to denialism, from assimilation to cultural genocide.In line with major theoretical trends in the mainstream literature on legitimacy and legitimation (Pardo 2000; Pardo & Prato eds 2018, 2019), we recognize that anthropology must answer not only what (cultural) heritage is, but also how it comes to matter, what is at stake, and for whom. Anthropology can help to define a broader and culturally diverse concept of heritage that depends not only upon static characteristics but also upon the context. Social dimensions can be changeable, particularly in conflict zones and where the situation develops fast, and even more in urban settings. The situation dictated by conflict brings out practical problems. The analysis of these problems helps us to understand the concept of cultural heritage, particularly in relation to current trends of domestic and international policies addressing wartime challenges. In such a context, our topic is relevant to urban anthropology (Pardo and Prato eds 2012; Prato and Pardo eds 2018), the anthropology of heritage (Rautenberg eds 2020, Weingrod 2006, Mollica 2012, Cervinkova 2020) and applied anthropology. The significance of the findings extends beyond the strictly academic realm. Cultural heritage plays a major role in conflict, including internationally not-recognized zones. Anthropology can help to see how these practices work and, in practical terms, suggest solutions. First, our topic is relevant to the issue of the preservation of cultural heritage and prevention of its intentional destruction (cultural genocide). Second, cultural policy and its management relates to the peculiarities of multiethnic and multi-confessional societies where the sites of heritages strongly relate to communal identities. Third, protection of monuments in conflict zones is not only an internal state problem, but also an international problem. References: • Cervinkova, H. and Golden, J.D. 2020. Remembering and Belonging: Jewish Heritage and Civic Agency in Poland’s Haunted Urban Space. In Ethnographies of Urbanity in Flux. Special issue, Urbanities, Vol.10 Suppl.3. • Mollica, M. and Arsen, H. 2021 (in press). The Syrian Armenians and the Turkish factor: Kessab, Aleppo and Deir ez-Zor in the Syrian War. Palgrave • Pardo, I. 2000. Introduction. Morals of Legitimacy: Interplay between Responsibility, Authority and Trust. In I. Pardo (ed.) Moral of Legitimacy: Between Agency and System. Oxford: Berghahn. • Pardo, I. and Prato, G.B. (eds) 2012. Anthropology in the City. Ashgate/Routledge. • Pardo, I. and Prato, G.B. (eds). 2018. Ethnographers Debate Legitimacy. Special issue, Urbanities, Vol.8 Suppl.1 • Pardo, I. and Prato, G.B. (eds). 2019. Legitimacy: Ethnographic and Theoretical Insights. Palgrave. • Rautenberg, M. (ed.) 2020. Images and Imagination of Heritagisation in Western Cities. Special issue of Urbanities, 10(1). • Prato, G.B. and Pardo, I. (eds). 2018. The Palgrave Handbook of Urban Anthropology. Palgrave Macmillan • Semboloni, L. et. al (eds). 2017). El “Buen Gobierno” desde Nueva España hasta la República Mexicana, Armando Siciliano • Weingrod, A. 2006. Political Reburials and Israeli Nationalism. In Political Ideology, Identity, Citizenship. Special issue of Global Bioethics, 19 (1).Regístrate
34Administered Insecurity and Urban-Poor Perspectives on Public Policy Practice [Comission on Anthropology, Public Policy and Development Practice]29Russell Parry Scottrparryscott@gmail.comMarvin Benjamin JungeThe panel’s objectives are to consider: (1) implications of State practices on notions of security and insecurity employed to implement public policies which address, directly or indirectly, the problems of the urban poor; (2) How urban-poor communities experience and respond to these policies and services; (3) How, in these experiences and responses, a range of subjectivities and confrontations take shape, often rooted in hybrid constructions of security and insecurity; and (4) How anthropological praxis--during empirical study, theorization, and dissemination of findings--influences these relations. State intervention directed to the urban poor goes beyond the redistributional provision of services. Invariably, services provided by states and NGOs are accompanied by overt and covert priorities which render harmful effects on subjectivities, living spaces, use of time, and on bodies and health. Existing anthropological studies illustrate how populations subvert development discourses, leading to hybrid subjectivities and organic forms of resistance, be they everyday or within and between special institutional structures used for their implementation. This panel profiles ethnographic studies from urban-poor contexts which detail how community demands for public service and intervention--whether through everyday or exceptional/crisis-events--become associated with the administration of insecurity. We devote special attention to the lived relationship between the institutional apparatus and its agents, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the practices of urban-poor subjects in the face of (im)possibilities in the observed field of action. Special attention should be given to poverty reduction/social protection, health, hunger, home and housing access, and gender relations. Understanding that anthropological research is conducted with (and not simply about) investigated populations, consideration on the positioning of anthropological researchers concerning the possible effects and application of their research to practices of governance and administered insecurity during and after fieldwork will stimulate a discussion on moral and ethical issues related to these practices.This panel brings together anthropological scholars from diverse world areas to consider how notions of security and insecurity are constructed through relations between the urban poor and the State. In urban communities, the State acts through practice and policies designed and implemented on behalf of the poor, as well as with other objectives. In both cases, the state-related web of practices contributes to misunderstandings, confrontations, and insecurity. The contextual backdrop for this panel is the ongoing daily hegemonic struggles between authoritarian, neoliberal and post-neoliberal economic and cultural paradigms, heightened by crises of confidence in networks of administrative state institutions. Under these conditions, states and development discourse deploy varied and often highly ambiguous notions of security and insecurity to inform policy around such wide-ranging themes as crime, violence, poverty reduction and income guarantees, health, hunger, housing, gender relations, and justice. This, in turn, can undermine the positive effects of these policies and, moreover, have deleterious effects on the population, whose reactions range from uneasy cooperation to subversion, refusal,and resistance. The panel’s specific objectives are to consider: (1) The implications of State practices on notions of security and insecurity employed to implement public policies which address, directly or indirectly, the problems of the urban poor; (2) How urban-poor communities (“target” or impacted populations) experience and respond to these policies and services; (3) How, in these experiences and responses, a range of subjectivities and confrontations take shape, often rooted in hybrid constructions of security and insecurity; and (4) How anthropological praxis--during empirical study, theorization, and dissemination of findings--influences these relations. In today’s world, State intervention directed to the urban poor goes beyond the redistributional provision of services. Invariably, services provided by states and NGOs are accompanied by overt and covert priorities which render harmful effects on subjectivities, living spaces, use of time, as well as on bodies and health. At the same time, existing anthropological studies have illustrated how populations subvert development discourses, leading to hybrid subjectivities and organic forms of resistance, be they everyday or within and between special institutional structures used for their implementation. This panel profiles ethnographic studies from diverse urban-poor contexts which detail how community demands for public service and intervention--whether through everyday or exceptional/crisis-events--become associated with the administration of insecurity. We devote special attention to the lived relationship between the institutional apparatus and its agents, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the practices of urban-poor subjects in the face of (im)possibilities in the observed field of action. Special attention should be given to poverty reduction/social protection, health, hunger, home and housing access, and gender relations. Understanding that anthropological research is conducted with (and not simply about) investigated populations, consideration on the positioning of anthropological researchers concerning the possible effects and application of their research to practices of governance and administered insecurity during and after fieldwork will stimulate a discussion on moral and ethical issues related to these practices.Regístrate
35Heritage Pasts and Futures in Mexico: Sustainability and Ethics [Commission on Indigenous Knowledge and Sustainable Development]30Sam Holley-Klinesholleykline@fsu.eduHilary Morgan V. LeathemTo better understand the broad relations between heritage and sustainability, we propose to ask a series of foundational questions: How have heritage projects (archaeological site reconstructions, community museums, and others) been maintained over time? Can—or should—they be made “sustainable”? How might researchers and practitioners work with and alongside the likes of national institutions, local actors, and international scholars? How might these actors respond? To this end, what are the moral and emotive dimensions – and ramifications – of heritage-making in these contexts of ‘sustainability’? To explore these questions, we propose to invite a range of scholars and practitioners (especially students, early-career researchers, and community members) working across Mexico. In this spirit, we consider “heritage ethics” broadly, incorporating works that address the historical development of heritage sites, and their possible futures, from a variety of disciplinary and stakeholder positions.This mesa temática evaluates the sustainability and ethics of cultural heritage preservation in Mexico. As the IUAES recognizes with its conference theme of its 2021—Los patrimonios, interconexiones globales en un mundo posible—questions of “heritage” link global processes (Meskell 2015) to individual nation-states (Geismar 2015) and diverse communities: Indigenous, campesino, and descendent, among others (Brumann and Berliner 2016). As a result, efforts to preserve heritage inevitably address, as Peter Gould and Anne Pyburn (2017) posit, decisions about collision or collaboration between archaeology and development. In Mexico, these debates intersect with a long history of state-sponsored archaeology focused on Mesoamerica’s monumental heritage sites (Vázquez León 2003). Mexican archaeologists have long debated the ethics of this approach (Panameño and Nalda 1979), and ethnographers and historians have increasingly explored the effects of heritage’s practical imbrication with issues of ethics and development in sites like Chichén Itzá (Breglia 2006) and Teotihuacan (Iracheta 2015). With this mesa tématica, we seek to broaden the geographical scope of studies of heritage in Mexico, incorporating perspectives both from regions with strong precedents in anthropological research as well as areas with rich potential for interdisciplinary dialogue. We further seek to facilitate conversations between heritage scholars in different institutional locations and at varied career stages but who share common concerns with the histories and prospects for the sustainability of heritage, or who are interested in querying the utility of sustainability as a concept and project altogether. To these ends, we welcome theoretical, empirical, and methodological contributions from scholars, practitioners, and stakeholders alike.Regístrate
36Anthropology of Educational Settings: New Trends and Challenges [Commission on Anthropology and Education]31Bóris Maiaborismaia@id.uff.brJoy HendryAnthropologists tend to treat education as a broader concept, focusing on the informal ways of the transmission of knowledge and processes of socialization that make humans part of a social group. However, there has been a growing interest in the anthropological study of mass education systems, especially those developed in post-colonial nation-states. In addition to demonstrating how cultural forms are embodied and contested through schooling, these studies question the common association between education and modernity, showing how educational processes and practices can differ greatly according to each political and socio-cultural context. This panel aims at discussing ethnographic research in educational settings, such as schools, colleges, universities, and other types of pedagogical contexts. It is also open to more theoretical and/or methodological contributions for the anthropological study of educational settings. We especially welcome papers that examine how educational institutions are affected and mobilized by projects of nation-states and transnational organizations that involve matters such as race and ethnicity, gender relations, environmentalism, human rights, citizenship, religious identities, and other pressing social issues.The subject of this panel is the contemporary dynamics of educational processes and practices in educational settings around the world and its relation to projects of nation-states and transnational organizations. By focusing on ethnographic research data, it aims to bring about discussions on how the daily life of educational institutions creates, reinforces, and contests the stratification and power relations of the society at large. In this sense, the papers should address questions on how the civic identities emerge in the educational process; the local effects of educational policies, especially the ones aimed at minority groups; how local stakeholders take part in the educational policies; how the connections between race, ethnicity, and gender produce hierarchies through schooling; how these institutions deal with the global and regional migration flows; how religion affects educational processes in these institutions. Learning and socialization have always been at the center of the anthropological inquiry; therefore, the analysis of educational settings is of great relevance to the discipline, since these institutions are responsible for processes of mass knowledge transmission in modern societies. The analysis of educational settings also corroborates contemporary theoretical approaches that understand young people as active agents in forging culture and society.Regístrate
37Interspecies communication with non-human agents as a global heritage32Vanessa Wijngaardenvanessa.wijngaarden@gmail.comVeronica PolicarpoThe intersubjective interaction and communication between humans and animals, plants, stones, water, mountains, planets and spirits has been researched worldwide, but mostly as part of Indigenous cultures or with an historical perspective. However, in Euro-American environments this type of communication is also widely experienced and practiced in an ongoing way, even if it often remains unaccepted in dominant cultural frameworks, due to modernity’s Cartesian and anti-pagan history. Some examples are interactions with pets, horse-whispering, intuitive interspecies communication, astrology, wicca rituals and new age chants. Can we speak of an ‘epistemicide’ with regard to intuitive, mental and non-physical interactions between humans and other beings as conscious agents? Could this be countered by interrogating the globally present interconnections between humans and other species that go beyond the physical, as a potential common human heritage? We explore these questions in the context of the Anthropocene and global environmental crisis as well as calls for cognitive justice, which aim for the academic knowledge making system to be a truly global project; an arena in which the knowledge of the dominant as well as Indigenous or alterative Euro-American subjugated are in conversation, rediscovering what knowledge actually is. Our current age is not only characterized by a worry over the continuing loss of languages, knowledges and heritages from Indigenous peoples, but also by movements to renew premodern European heritage. These two movements come together as, in light of worldwide ethnic and environmental crises, the search for what unifies and distinguishes us as humans and what position we take in the whole of life flares up. This panel is open to papers exploring intuitive and non-physical connections and interactions which include non-human beings as agents from all over the world, or those who are aiming at a comparative perspective of several of these cases.Anthropologists have established that the essentialized dualism of nature versus culture is a relatively recent, specific Northern notion (Descola 2013). This notion is increasingly difficult to keep in the Anthropocene (Dibley 2012), which frames our world through a lens of co-becoming (Haraway 2008). In fact, a wide variety of peoples all over the world perceive and experience human and non-human worlds as interactive and indivisible (High 2010; Ingold 1994; Kohn 2013). In this context, intuitive exchanges and communication between humans and other species or natural elements, have been experienced and practised widely over time and across cultures. Insights from ethology (Waal 2017) and the Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness inspire novel research initiatives, e.g. on how animals and plants speak to us through intuitive interspecies communication (Barrett et al. in print; Callicott 2013). However, due to the tricky terrain of knowledge and species hierarchies, the academe is hampering to fully integrate these types of studies. Currently shaken through the ontological and species turns, and theories of agency beyond-the-human are popping up left and right (Barad 2007; High 2010; Watts 2013). In line with movements against epistemicide (Santos 2015) and calls for cognitive justice (Visvanathan 2009), this panel aims to bring together research on intuitive exchanges and communication between humans and non-human agents from a variety of (sub)cultures and geographical locations, in order to explore whether these type of interactions could be seen as a common human intangible heritage, that is, a practice of heritage that helps us to understand who we are, and is therefore worthy of preservation (Harrison 2010). References Barad, Karen 2007 Meeting the Universe Halfway: Duke University Press. Barrett, Mary Jeanne, Victoria Hinz, Vanessa Wijngaarden, and Marie Lovrod in print ‘Speaking’ With Other Animals through Intuitive Interspecies Communication. Towards Cognitive and Interspecies Justice. In A Research Agenda for Animal Geographies. Alice J. Hovorka, Sandra McCubbin, and Lauren van Patter, eds. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Callicott, Christina 2013 Interspecies communication in the Western Amazon. Music as a a form of conversation between plants and people. European Journal of Ecopsychology, 4:32–43. Descola, Philippe 2013 Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: University of California Press. Dibley, Ben 2012 "Nature is Us". The Anthropocene and species-being. Transformations Journal of Media and Culture, 21. Haraway, Donna Jeanne 2008 When species meet. Posthumanities, 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Harrison, Rodney 2010 Understanding the politics of heritage. Manchester: Manchester University Press. High, Casey 2010 Agency and Anthropology. Selected Bibliography. Ateliers d'anthropologie, 34, https://ateliers.revues.org/8515. Ingold, Tim 1994 What is an animal? One World archaeology. London: Routledge. Kohn, Eduardo 2013 How forests think. Toward an anthropology beyond the human. California: University of California Press. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa 2015 Epistemologies of the South. Justice against epistemicide. New York: Routledge. Visvanathan, Shiv 2009 The search for cognitive justice. Electronic document, http://www.india-seminar.com/2009/597/597_shiv_visvanathan.htm. Waal, Frans de 2017 Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are? London: Granta books. Watts, Vanessa 2013 Indigenous place-thought & agency amongst humans and non-humans. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 2:20-3 4.Regístrate
39Anthropologies of the sea and the coast: occupation, perception and uses of the maritime and coastal environment.33Leticia D'Ambrosio Camarerotreboles@gmail.comGianpaolo Adomilli Knoler, Gastón CarreñoThis table brings together Latin American researchers specialized in maritime-coastal anthropology, opening spaces to think about coastal environments from an anthropological and historical perspective that allows us to approach the socio-cultural processes of occupation, perception and uses of the maritime and coastal environment in various social configurations. giving an account of the ways of life of local populations and their relationships with different worlds. Along with the above, the idea is to get closer to their knowledge, transmitted generationally and dynamically incorporated in the concrete practices and experiences of humans and non-humans in the maritime-coastal environment. From this point of view, the natural and cultural are established as common goods, the sea and the coast as sources of symbolization and the possibility of the future of multiple knowledge and sociability. Its objective is to put the different investigations into discussion and perspective and generate knowledge about natural-cultural heritages. Among its main interests is the study of the relationships of human and non-human groups in the maritime-coastal environment and the analysis of the various ways of inhabiting, thinking, feeling, creating and classifying said space. We seek to address ethnographic experiences that deal with the different ways of knowing the coastal maritime environment in which diverse ecological knowledge is combined and delve into different perspectives that contemplate the contexts and processes in which cultural and natural diversity occur in multiple relationships and / or conflicts. We seek to engage in dialogue with various lines of research and debate on the research process and the construction of methodological tools and categories of analysis for approaching the sea and the coast as a common good in its cultural-natural dimension. We consider that the subject acquires relevance and enables exchange with other disciplines and areas within the framework of what has been called the DecadeThis table brings together Latin American researchers specialized in maritime-coastal anthropology, opening spaces to think about coastal environments from an anthropological and historical perspective, which allows us to approach the sociocultural processes of occupation, perception and uses of the maritime and coastal environment in various social configurations , giving an account of the ways of life of local populations and their relationships with different worlds. Along with the above, the idea is to get closer to their knowledge, transmitted generationally and dynamically incorporated in the concrete practices and experiences of humans and non-humans in the maritime-coastal environment. From this point of view, the natural and cultural are established as common goods, the sea and the coast as sources of symbolization and the possibility of the development of multiple knowledge and sociability. The proposal arises within the framework of the South American Network of Maritime Anthropology, which began in 2009, date from which a group of researchers carry out research on the coast of South America, generating a periodic methodological and theoretical exchange that we allows to put in discussion and perspective the different investigations and to generate knowledge about natural-cultural heritages. Among its axes of interest, is the study of the relationships of human and non-human groups in the maritime-coastal environment and the analysis of the various ways of inhabiting, thinking, feeling, creating and classifying said space. We seek to address ethnographic experiences that deal with the different ways of knowing the coastal maritime environment in which diverse ecological knowledge is combined and delve into different perspectives that contemplate the contexts and processes in which cultural and natural diversity occur in multiple relationships and / or conflicts. In this sense, we are interested in discussing, for example, the ways in which these spaces are established as a source of cultural productions and transformations, or else, emerge as a conflict between the social actors linked to it and to opposing forms of development. Related to this, the studies in this area address issues related to the specificity of the social processes of appropriation and transformation of the coastal maritime space and the various forms of management and handling. We seek to engage in dialogue with various lines of research and debate on the research process and the construction of methodological tools and categories of analysis for approaching the sea and the coast as a common good in its cultural-natural dimension. We consider that the subject acquires relevance and enables exchange with other disciplines and areas, within the framework of what has been called the Decade of the Oceans by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).Regístrate
40Women in the History of Anthropology [Commission on Global Feminisms and Queer Politics]34Felipe Bruno Martins Fernandesfernandes.felipebruno@gmail.comMiriam Pillar Grossi, SusanaAnthropology suffered in the 1960s an important shift. The approaches that were positioned as neutral or distant from the object studied, as well as those colonialist positions, came to live with engaged perspectives in which there was adhesion of the researcher with the struggles for justice and social transformation involving the movements studied. This turnaround was made possible, to a great extent, by the contribution of women to the discipline that, by theorizing subjectivity, agency and power constructed the conditions of this displacement. Women are present throughout the history of anthropology, despite the more widespread versions that make them invisible and that assume their contributions as less relevant. Nowadays, in spite of the various initiatives of Feminist Anthropology in refocusing anthropological thinking from the lens of gender and sexuality, the discipline still shapes itself as an androcentric dimension of reality. The anthropological canon recognizes few women and undergraduate and postgraduate courses have a predominantly male bibliography. Currently, in world anthropologies, women are the majority in associations. Even so, when speaking of “anthropological theory”, there is not enough recognition of the production of women. The open panel will allow the construction of a reflection on the impacts of feminism on the history of anthropology, as well as the recognition and appreciation of the contributions of women, indigenous, queer, trans, black and other subalternized groups. We desire to impact on the field's theoretical framework, expanding the participation of more symmetrical and decolonial reflections in the world anthropological canon.Anthropology suffered in the 1960s an important shift. The approaches that were positioned as neutral or distant from the object studied, as well as those colonialist positions, came to live with perspectives engaged in which there was adhesion of the researcher with the struggles for justice and social transformation involving the movements studied, particularly, popular and subalternized groups. This turnaround was made possible, to a great extent, by the contribution of women to the discipline that, by theorizing subjectivity, agency and power constructed the conditions of this displacement. Women are present throughout the history of anthropology, despite the more widespread versions that make them invisible and that assume their contributions as less relevant. Nowadays, in spite of the various initiatives of Feminist Anthropology in refocusing anthropological thinking from the lens of gender and sexuality, the discipline still shapes itself as an androcentric dimension of reality. The anthropological canon recognizes few women and undergraduate and postgraduate courses have a predominantly male bibliography. Rarely, in a course of anthropological theory, there is a woman other than Margaret Mead or Ruth Benedict. Currently, in world anthropology, women are the majority in associations. Many are presidents, such as the American Anthropological Association (AAA) presided by Alisse Waterston, the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) presided by Faye Harrison and the Brazilian Anthropological Association (ABA) presided by Lia Zanotta Machado. Even so, when speaking of “anthropological theory”, there is not enough recognition of the production of women. Based on this, we ask: what about women in the history of anthropology? The participation of women in anthropology is an invisible genealogy, to use a term from Regna Darnell. Anthropology, which since its emergence as an area of knowledge invests in relations of proximity between the researcher and his/her interlocutors, already signaled the questioning of the neutrality of science, dictated from categories such as "positionality", brought to Brazil by the feminist anthropologist Cecília Sardenberg. According to Marylin Strathern, anthropology was "colonized" by the feminist conceptual field in the 1970s, generating a specialty concerned with "women" and "gender", called Feminist Anthropology. However, the feminist conceptual field and its later specialty were not able to produce displacements in the anthropological discipline as a whole. For Guita Debert, feminist anthropology becomes a relevant subfield by requiring the researcher to self-declare her/himself as a feminist. Based on this, the Panel, a continuation of previous encounters of IUAES, will allow the construction of a dense reflection on the impacts of feminism on the history of anthropology, as well as the recognition and appreciation of the contributions of women, indigenous, trans *, black and other subalternized groups in the history of this discipline. This will directly impact on the field's theoretical framework, expanding the participation of more symmetrical and decolonial reflections in the world anthropological canon, since it envisages the participation of the main specialists in the theme of Asia (with an emphasis in the South), North America, Central America, Africa, and Brazil.Regístrate
41Fluvial sediment mining at local and community scales: legal, political and social issues35Edith Francoise Kauffer Micheledith.kauffer@gmail.comIsabelle Michallet, Luzma Fabiola Nava JiménezAt global scale, sand and gravel -known as sediments for scientists- are today the second extracted natural resources in the world due to an exponential demand during the last decades that is continuously growing. Sediment extraction could be considered nowadays as a typical Anthropocene’s activity because of its environmental impacts but it also provokes economic implications, reveals political issues and conflicts. Environmental, economic, legal issues as well as social and cultural dynamics are deeply entangled in the extraction, which also reveals local organisation, political realities and power relations. As river goods and services, sediments tell us about the state of river basins and their currents but above all for social science and humanities they talk about local and riparian societies and remain an anthropological topic deeply embedded with environment, local contexts and the State. The panel proposes to analyse fluvial sediment mining focusing on its artisanal modalities as a contemporary activity: perceptions of sediments by local population, main stakeholders, relations between State’s rules and local norms, local authorities and networks, emerging conflicts. It also aims to debate on the conciliation of extraction with environmental issues and the necessity to preserve sediments as a natural heritage. Knowledge and understanding of these activities may enable a better convergence between local needs and external considerations regarding their environmental impacts. Who are the local stakeholders involved in fluvial artisanal sediment mining? How are they organized? What are their perceptions on sediments? How do they relate with other sediment extractors and local elites? Whose heritage are the sediments and are they considered as such? How does the extraction chain work? The panel aims to discuss fluvial sediment mining focusing on its artisanal modalities as a contemporary activity. Based on case studies, we would like to invite to submit abstracts from different parts of the world.At global scale, sand and gravel -known as sediments for scientists- are today the second extracted natural resources in the world due to an exponential demand during the last decades that is continuously growing. However, sediment extraction could be considered nowadays as a typical Anthropocene’s activity because of its environmental impacts provoking economic implications and revealing political issues and socioenvironmental conflicts. Sediments are not renewable and their extraction represents an average of 18 kg per inhabitant each day. They are used for a large variety of industrial, building and “development” activities. Sediment mining in fresh waters could take place in rivers beds and quarries. The panel will focus on the first ones, which can be divided into two studied sites: the flood plains of the rivers and the course of the river, and more precisely the minor river bed of the river. Sediments are exploited as resources, and as a good provided by nature. However, sediments are also a natural heritage, an invisible part of the fluvial ecosystem as important as water resources. As sediments travel with the river flow and are spread all along the course of the river, they link territories, people and environments, and thus, need to be protected across scales. The socio-environmental and socio-economic connexions they create in a watershed and the fundamental ecologic role they play are imposing factors to consider sediment mining as a potential threat. Fluvial sediment mining is forbidden or strictly regulated in some countries like in the European Union because of its environmental impacts. Nevertheless, activities like unregulated sand and gravel mining in river are still taking place today in many countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa. Thus, the heterogeneity between industrial sand mining and local grass-roots extraction is crucial to understand their dynamics regarding work force and technology. Environmental, economic, legal issues as well as social and cultural dynamics are deeply entangled in the extraction which also reveals local organisation, political realities and power relations. As river goods and services, sediments tell us about the state of river basins and their currents but above all for social science and humanities they talk about local and riparian societies and remain an anthropological topic deeply embedded with environment, local contexts and the State. Who are the local stakeholders involved in fluvial artisanal sediment mining? How are they organized? What are their perceptions on sediments? How do they relate with other sediment extractors and local elites? Whose heritage are the sediments and are they considered as such? How does the extraction chain work? The panel proposes to analyse fluvial sediment mining focusing on its artisanal modalities as a contemporary activity: perception of sediments by local population, main stakeholders, relations between State’s rules and local norms, local authorities and networks, emerging conflicts. It also aims to debate on the conciliation of extraction with environmental issues and the necessity to preserve sediments as a natural heritage. Knowledge of these activities may enable a better convergence between local needs and external considerations regarding their impacts.Regístrate
42Patrimonialization of food, public policy and tourism in the global context. [Commission on Food and Nutrition Anthropology (ICAF)]36Federico Gerardo Zúñiga Bravofederico_zuniga@inah.gob.mxJosé Antonio Vázquez Medina, F. Xavier MedinaThe patrimonialization and public policies in the processes of management and putting into value the traditional culinary diversity through the gastronomic tourism market are part of a global trend in which the value of food - as part of the cultural and food system - acquires new significance. First, from its patrimonialization and, later, through its commodification as a tourist resource (tourist). To recognize food as a heritage, although it is due to the wide variety of practices related to the ways of eating and drinking, whose diversity is manifested through the exchange of products, socio-cultural codes inherited within communities and peoples, and that are part of its biological-cultural heritage (Zúñiga 2017), it also has to do with its revitalization and transmission as central strategies to ensure its protection. This has led international organizations such as UNESCO to issue guidelines that guarantee their safeguarding, but also because they are considered a strategic resource within the framework of the global tourism market, acquiring a commercial value that, paradoxically, is legitimized by the names of those bodies: So that the process of patrimonial activation of food traditions to be included in the field of gastronomy (Hernández 2018), in turn has induced diverse manifestations and scenarios to be exhibited and consumed. From an interdisciplinary perspective (food anthropology, critical heritage studies, cultural management, among others) at this table, we propose to analyze and reflect on the processes of food patrimonialization and its link with such complex areas as public policies and tourism, based on the review of various case studies that have patrimonialization and putting as their axis of analysis in value of food and kitchens national, regional and traditional resources as a tourist resource.The aim of this table is to reflect on the role of food heritage in tourism and public policy (cultural, tourist and economic) as part of a global trend in which food has become a cross-cutting axis of public policy (Camacho 2016). This implies its analysis from a critical perspective in order to unravel the logic of the actors and institutions involved in the broader social processes that have to do with the patrimonialization and turistisation of food cultures. In addition to providing a means of safeguarding them, following the inclusion of food expressions in UNESCO’s Representative Lists of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, a way was made available to reassess and disseminate the importance of national, indigenous-campesino and popular kitchens, this has also involved its management and putting into value as tourist resources. In addition, it has constrained relations between heritage, market and political strategies based on various logics (institutional, legal and administrative (Chaves et. al. 2016). Because the patrimonialization of food cultures is a recent phenomenon, coinciding with the semantic opening of heritage and culture concepts, as part of what could be considered a “boom” or “equity inflation”, this phenomenon has influenced the expansion and selection of different aspects of intangible culture that have not been recognized before, but which are now likely to be incorporated into inventories of what is viable and relevant to patrimonialize (López et al. 2016). Consequently, food has become a new economic, political, social and cultural-patrimonial phenomenon that induces such diverse and complex effects, manifestations and scenarios that are not exempt from conflicts and tensions as to the social uses that the patrimonial carriers and promoters decide to give it (Camacho 2016; Bak-Geller, Matta and Suremain 2019). Analyzing the effects of patrimonialization and the discourses derived from this process in terms of the conversion of cultural and natural elements labeled “heritage” for various purposes - including their management and exploitation as a tourist and economic resource - implies questioning the formulation and implementation of policies public (economic, tourist, cultural) to favor private interests or of actors linked to official institutions or international organizations that have been part of the impetus for patrimonialization and its subsequent appropriation or alienation (Chaves, et. al. 2016). On the other hand, if public policies are considered to be consistent with international policies, the assessment of culture and food becomes relevant in global agendas aimed at promoting development, as strategic resources are considered in planning, design and management of social and economic policies and programs. This proposed Thematic Table is officially promoted from the IUAES Commission on Food and Nutrition Anthropology (ICAF).Regístrate
43Women’s Rights – Human Rights: A Study of Migrant Women in the Post-Covid World [Human Rights Commission and Migration Commission]37Annapurna D Pandeyadpandey@ucsc.eduBobby Luthra SinhaWomen comprise slightly less than half of the international migrant population. While women and men decide to migrate for similar reasons, gender-specific social and cultural norms also play decisive roles in the migration process and therefore affect the experience of migrant women and girls. A greater understanding of migration as a gendered phenomenon and women’s rights as human rights can enable the States and other civic bodies to better protect migrant women and girls from gender-based discrimination, abuse and violations at all stages of migration, and fulfill their human rights. In 1975 when Mexico hosted the world conference on International Year of Women, we have come a long way in recognizing that women’s rights are very much an integral part of human rights.Women comprise slightly less than half of the international migrant population. While women and men decide to migrate for similar reasons, gender-specific social and cultural norms also play decisive roles in the migration process and therefore affect the experience of migrant women and girls. A greater understanding of migration as a gendered phenomenon and women’s rights as human rights can enable the States and other civic bodies to better protect migrant women and girls from gender-based discrimination, abuse and violations at all stages of migration, and fulfil their human rights. In 1975 when Mexico hosted the world conference on International Year of Women, we have come a long way in recognizing that women’s rights are very much an integral part of human rights. For migrant women in vulnerable situations the lacunae continue that formal allegiance to all human rights debates, treaties and conventions places obligations on ratifying states theoretically. In practice, migrant women may not only face State apathy in the public domain but also bear the brunt of discriminatory customs, cultural norms and religious codes in the private sphere. Our panel works around the theme of gender-sensitization within a human rights framework to ensure the safety of women in migration contexts. Our motive is to brainstorm over challenges encountered and solutions proposed by involved actors, frontline workers as well as state and non-state agencies. In this panel, we will focus on (a) ways and means to overcome the obstacles existing to the full and effective protection of the human rights of migrants, recognizing the particular vulnerability of women, children and those undocumented or in an irregular situation; (b) discuss mechanisms to request and receive information from all relevant sources, including migrants themselves, on violations of the human rights of migrants and their families; (c) To formulate appropriate recommendations to prevent and remedy violations of the human rights of migrants, wherever they may occur; (d) To promote the effective application of relevant international norms and standards on the issue; (e) To recommend actions and measures applicable at the national, regional and international levels to eliminate violations of the human rights of migrants; (f) To take into account a gender perspective when requesting and analysing information, and to give special attention to the occurrence of multiple forms of discrimination and violence against migrant women and; (g) Understand how in times of COVID-19, many a doors were shut on support-networks to already vulnerable women - migrants living in precarious situations. Caught on the Cusp between the ongoing migration woes and burgeoning pandemic hardships, vulnerable migrant-women also face domestic violence at the hands of their partners. Where do we stand today in terms of socially preventive measures, public- policy matters and individual stories of resilience?Regístrate
44Traditional-Modern Transformation: An Anthropological Perspective [Commission on Enterprise Anthropology]38Jijiao Zhangzhjijiao@126.comSENG HUAT ONGThe European Union countries, the United States, and other developed countries have entered the modern society today. However, many developing countries are still in the transformation from tradition to modernity, in which they faced with emerging social issues. More importantly, they are also faced a dilemma that is familiar to all developing countries which try to create new theories and paradigms amid the interactions between local research traditions and foreign theories and experiences. In recent years, I have discussed on this issue with scholars from China, Japan, the United Kingdom, Malaysia and other countries. At this conference, we are expected to invite scholars from developing countries to discuss the great development opportunities in Anthropology as it has gone both global and local research. Specifically, how Anthropology in countries such as Asia, Africa and Latin America can achieve traditional-modern transformation in the 21st century.In modern society, many developing countries, usually the latecomers in anthropological research, has run into hurdles in the traditional-modern transformation. The panel mainly focuses on two subjects. First is how Anthropology in countries such as Asia, Africa and Latin America can achieve traditional-modern transformation in the 21st century. Second is how those countries could tackle with emerging social issues and create home-grown theories and paradigms. Through discussion, this panel would offer those developing countries more insight into the further development path in the anthropological sciences.Regístrate
45Heritage and Food: markets, processes and dissonances in a global world39Joana Lucasjoana.i.lucas@gmail.comJulie Cavignac, Paula Balduino de MeloSince 2003, with the creation of the UNESCO “Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage”, food and culinary systems, knowledge, production processes and techniques associated with food are the object of actions and policies for preservation. If there are relatively few regional food preparations and cuisines classified by competent bodies at an international level, there are many dishes considered heritage by their holders, namely in rural areas where festive or regional foods become cultural symbols. However, heritagization actions do not always contextualize the complex economic and social situations that correspond to food consumption, and an analysis of the social and historical contexts in which they were created and consumed is often lacking, considering that countless regional food preparations classified as heritage were initially designed to respond to food shortages and scarcity. On the other hand, the urbanization of contemporary societies, the stranglehold of the agro-industry in the commercialization of food, the crises, dangers and the sanitary and ecological emergencies, have as answers the mobilization of conscious consumers who struggle for food that is healthy, sustainable and at a fair price; concern usually associated with a nostalgic appeal for "authentic" foods produced in an agricultural territory increasingly distant from consumers and whose "rurality" is idealized and understood as the corollary of eating practices associated with the past. Concomitantly, farmers organize themselves into collectives and cooperatives to avoid intermediaries and to create short commercial circuits. A market was created for more "natural" diets, through the direct sale of agroecological products that can be also heritage foods. Hence, we can observe a certain trivialization of the idea of food heritage, with the commercialization of terroir products, particularly in tourist areas, causing a gourmetization of these foods and a recovery of the markers of “traditional” or “popular” food culture by local elites.In this panel we want to list, identify and collectively reflect on memories, knowledges, practices, processes, and discuss, in a comparative and critical way, the conflicts and consequences of the heritagization of food systems and culinary creations, in particular those of vulnerable populations and working classes. We will take this opportunity to renew the debate on the improvement of local or "typical" products that often refer to realities of the past that previous generations had to distance themselves from: in an increasingly urbanized world and where traditional production systems are threatened by powerful food industries, who wins from heritagization? What are the clashes of cultural policies and actions for the heritage of culinary preparations? Finally, we intend to discuss culinary heritage processes outside official agencies and associated with survival strategies; we will question whether heritage contributes to produce and reinforce inequalities or rather, on the contrary, it constitutes itself as a lever in the production of different agencies and emancipations. Thus, we would like to receive contributions of an anthropological character, ethnographic essays that analyze food heritage; local territorialities, socio-ecological interactions and food systems; dynamics of transformation of food cultures and culinary processes; new markets and sale circuits for heritage foods; food as a marker of social and cultural differences, among other related themes.Regístrate
46An anthropology of contemporary technoculture40carmen buenocarmenbuenocastellanos@gmail.comRamona PérezAnthropology has been exploring the relationship of technology to culture for generations, focusing on how technological innovation impact the lives of humans and humans’ interactions with their environments. In the last few decades, advancements in media, science, and infrastructures of technology have altered our lives at an unprecedented rate, prompting anthropologists and other social scientists to place studies of science and technology at the forefront of their disciplinary engagement. Conversations in anthropology have sought to understand how science and technology could be investigated through ethnographic methodologies and which theoretical paradigms might encompass the human/science/technology merger. From cyborgs (Haraway, 1983) to actor-networks (Latour, 2005), anthropologists argued that technology should be understood as an active agent in social and cultural production. The COVID 19 pandemic has only made more salient the question of science and technology as a principal force in culture and culture change. Videoconferencing and vaccines, for example, are making conversations and hope possible, helping us envision a future out of the current health emergency. This panel reflects the last decade of anthropological inquiry in science and technology studies that has focused on questions of how science and technology have impacted culture change, representation, power and power imbalances, identity formation and social interaction, the collapse of time and space, and the ethical dilemmas triggered by these same advancements. Work, food, aesthetics, art, health, homes, education, politics and all production processes are continuously modified by technology. Everyday life and its related imaginaries in general transform with and sometimes are transformed by technological changes. Papers in the panel examine this dialectic and place themselves within what Rabinow (2018) has called the anthropology of the contemporary: anthropological work that deals with the present, the recent past and the possible futures.Anthropology has been exploring the relationship of technology to culture for generations, focusing on how technological innovation impact the lives of humans and humans’ interactions with their environments. In the last few decades, advancements in media, science, and infrastructures of technology have altered our lives at an unprecedented rate, prompting anthropologists and other social scientists to place studies of science and technology at the forefront of their disciplinary engagement. Science and Technology Studies (STS) in anthropology emerged in the late 1980s and had as its subject the creation of knowledge and the understanding that science is a socially constructed phenomenon. In reviewing the advancements of science and technology studies in anthropology at the end of the 20th century, Escobar (1995) argued for explorations of cyberculture that fused science, technology, sociality, and biology together to address the impact that technological advancements were having on not only culture but also the biological self. These early conversations in anthropology sought to understand how science and technology could be investigated through ethnographic methodologies and which theoretical paradigms might encompass the human/science/technology merger. From cyborgs (Haraway) to actor-networks (Latour), anthropologists argued that technology should be understood as an active agent in social and cultural production. Included within these conversations were the ways in which non-scientists provoke new discoveries or enhance the engagement of technology and science into social production. The current pandemic of COVID-19 makes these conversations even more imperative as virtual technologies have been imbued with the power of centrality in the lives of people across the globe, reinventing modes of business, sociality, biomedical practices, and even research paradigms, among many other such elements of human interaction that once rested on direct human contact and engagement. The placement of science and technology at the heart of this global crisis demonstrates the ease with which biological realities can take precedence over social necessity in assuring the future of humanity and how these advancements reinvent cultural engagement. The COVID 19 pandemic has only made more salient the question of science and technology as a principal force in culture and culture change. Videoconferencing and vaccines, for example, are making conversations and hope possible, helping us envision a future out of the current health emergency. This panel reflects the last decade of anthropological inquiry in science and technology studies that has focused on questions of how science and technology have impacted culture change, representation, power and power imbalances, identity formation and social interaction, the collapse of time and space, and the ethical dilemmas triggered by these same advancements. Work, food, aesthetics, art, health, homes, education, politics and all production processes are continuously modified by technology. Everyday life and its related imaginaries in general transform with and sometimes are transformed by technological changes. Papers in the panel examine this dialectic and place themselves within what Rabinow (2018) has called the anthropology of the contemporary: anthropological work that deals with the present, the recent past and the possible futures.Regístrate
48The heritage of shared soundscapes: collaborative archive activation in the context of music and dance revivals41Gisela Cánepagcanepa@pucp.edu.peIngrid KummelsThe subject and approach of this panel is an invitation to design collaborative ways of activating archive materials by means of digital technologies and social media in the interest of ongoing processes of cultural restitution, interpretation and revitalization. We consider the archive as a practice. More specifically, we seek to critically explore the nature of conventional sound and audiovisual archives of music and dance traditions, as well as the collaborative experience of activating such archives with local communities whose members are the custodians of the documented music and dance repertoires. Our aim is to discuss the impact of these processes in the creation of sound and audiovisual archives as well as heritage policies and identity politics negotiated within “shared soundscapes” (Kummels and Cánepa 2019). A web of actors including the state, scholars, artists and members of local communities and cultural promoters are involved in shaping these soundscapes. These actors in turn are defined by hierarchical relations and racial, ethnic, gender and class discrimination. These relationships influence their capacity to negotiate and activate sound and audiovisual archival contents as well as to revitalize cultural heritages. The panel seeks to contribute to the development of sound and audiovisual archives of music and dance expressions from a perspective of the archive as a practice geared towards building the future. In this same vein, we inquire into the impact of digital technologies and social media on the creation and management of sound and audiovisual heritages. We consider the possibilities that they offer in narrowing gaps with regard to knowledge production and the management of cultural content, in view of enhancing local development and a more diverse and democratic world.The sound and audiovisual documentation of local music and dance traditions by state entities or individual researchers is currently held in the archives of public and private museums and universities, as well as in private collections often located in the metropolises. Access and use of archive materials are restricted to a few experts or a select public. The conventional archive thus relies on a spatial, social, and epistemological distance between this repository and the music and dance repertoires which have been recorded in the past, as well as those that are currently being recorded. At the same time, local communities revitalize their cultural repertoires using historical recordings in the context of their identity politics. When promoting recognition of their own musical and dance heritages they resort to everyday archival practices and newly accessible digital tools. For example, mobile phones are used for documenting and archiving on social media. From an anthropological perspective, this tension serves as an invitation to practice collaborative forms of archive activation that involves local communities that are custodians of the documented music and dance repertoires. The objective of the panel is twofold: On the one hand, it seeks to reflect on the processes by which musical and dance repertoires were integrated into conventional sound and audiovisual archives and the effects of that integration. On the other, it aims to convene collaborative experiences that engage in cultural restitution, interpretation and revitalization through innovative archival practices based on digital tools. In this panel, we extend an invitation to analyse current processes of archive activation, hand in hand with ongoing patrimonalization processes of music and dance repertoires that take place within what we conceive as “shared soundscapes” (Kummels and Cánepa 2019). A web of actors is involved and negotiates within this soundscape. These actors include the state, scholars, artists and members of local communities and cultural promoters who in turn are defined by hierarchical relations and racial, ethnic, gender and class discrimination. The inequalities within shared soundscapes influence the negotiation and activation of sound and audiovisual materials as well as of cultural heritages which involve heritage policies and identity politics. The topic and approach are in dialogue with initiatives that seek to democratize the archive and support local development by narrowing gaps in knowledge production and management of cultural content. It seeks to contribute to the understanding of sound and audiovisual heritage from a perspective of the archive as a practice geared towards building the future. In this same vein, we inquire into the impact of digital technologies and social media on the creation and management of sound and audiovisual heritages. We consider the possibilities that emerging shared soundscapes offer in view of making a more diverse and democratic world.Regístrate
49Anthropological surveys and affected territories. Epistemological resistance in face of extractivism [Human Rights]42María Teresa Sierra Camachomtsierrac@hotmail.comYuri Escalante, Morita CarrascoIn this roundtable, the aim will be to discuss the role of anthropological expertise in the dispute over territory and heritage that is linked to indigenous peoples. Anthropology has been called upon to present reports or expert opinions to assess the impacts and consequences of private or governmental interventions in ethnic or community spaces. Anthropological expertise has evolved from a criminal legal instrument to another of a territorial nature, involved in the dispute over collective rights and not only individual rights, which is a perspective of legal pluralism and globalisation. It is important to note the way in which expert knowledge is acquired and expressed through collective, collegial, or collaborative research strategies that require actors or affected parties themselves and the sense in which the juridical and cultural rationalities are disputed and other knowledge and other indigenous knowledge and world views are evidenced. These participatory methodologies, which are led by indigenous peoples and communities themselves, are of particular importance in accounting for epistemic transformations of the discipline whose classic standard of positivist research become lax for others of greater social scope. We invite those researchers who have conducted anthropological surveys in this field to exchange experiences, methodologies and theories.The era of multiculturalism manifests itself as the normative policy to negotiate, manage and standardize the occupation of territories and the dispossession of heritage of native peoples and local communities. Parallel to this extractivism, a period of struggle and vindication of demands through constitutionally and the internationally recognised collective rights. Thus, there exists tension between the right to dominate and regulate the territory and the right to resist and to become emancipated that unleashes multiple forms of violence to appropriate strategic goods and heritages, while at the same time there exist multiple demands and litigation to oppose and resist legalised dispossession. In this contentious scenario, anthropology has been summoned to present expert opinions to evaluate the impacts and consequences of private or governmental or private interventions in ethnic or community spaces. Anthropological expertise has been converted from a criminal legal instrument to another of a territorial nature, involved in the dispute for collective rights and not only individual rights. Driven from different fronts (governments, companies, communities, organizations), anthropological surveys on territory and heritage are part of far-reaching legal controversies in which the way to support hegemonic law is decisive, as opposed to contradicting or counter-arguing about the rights of collective claimants. This becomes relevant when acquiring expert knowledge and expressing it through collective and or collaborative research strategies, either through social actors or through the affected parties themselves. Ultimately, it is a matter of accounting for the epistemological resistance and disobedience in the face of extractivism, militarism, privatization and division of territories in the field of law. The objective is to exchange experiences, methodologies and theories on expertise related to the defence of the territory and heritage of indigenous peoples. Expert narratives can be referred to from the official and standardising discourses of dispossession to new forms of representation and subversion of the meanings of ethno-territories, sacred sites, jurisdictional boundaries and other features of the commons and patrimonial assets.Regístrate
50Anthropology of homelessness43ali ruiz coronelali@sociales.unam.mxdiego ygor delgado alves, nataly camacho-mariñoHomelessness is a complex phenomenon that opens up multiple veins for anthropological research. Although it has not been one of the traditional fields, the constant increase in the number of homeless people and the exacerbation of the problems associated with homelessness, have forced anthropology to include it among its research topics. Walking the path opened in 1923 by sociologist Nels Anderson with his famous The Hobo, social anthropology has described the existence of a street culture, characterized by particular relationships with the city, socialization rules, and a system of signs and symbols particular to this population that ensure survival on the street. Medical anthropology has revealed the accelerated deterioration in the health of those who inhabit public spaces due to insufficient sleep, poor nutrition, lack of hygiene, suffering from mental illnesses, problematic use of psychoactive substances, and lack of access to health services, among others. The anthropology of the state, has denounced the origin of the problem in structural violence and has shown the omissions in policies directed at this population. Applied anthropology has opened spaces for the homeless people themselves to express their circumstances and needs; and has generated intervention proposals integrating the emic and etic knowledge. However, the investigations are scattered, as are the anthropologists interested in the subject. We propose this session as a meeting space in which existing research can be made known, the existence of an international anthropological research network can be promoted, and a joint research agenda might be outlined.Homelessness: a global human crisis.In the United Nations’ Report on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, the Special Rapporteur concludes that: “homelessness is a global human rights crisis that demands an urgent global response” (UN, 2015: 3). Being made homeless results from a lack of guarantee of fundamental rights for people whose rights then keep being systematically violated while living on the streets. Those who face discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, place of origin, religion, socioeconomic status, gender, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or age; are more likely to become homeless, and once homeless, experience additional discrimination. The last global survey attempted by the United Nations (UN,2015) estimated that up to one hundred million people were homeless worldwide and assured that the number is constantly increasing. Because the phenomenon is caused by the intersection of both individual circumstances and a range of structural sociohistorical causes, when studying homelessness one can find regional patterns typically associated with unplanned urbanization, centralization of services, unequal access to land and property, poverty and isolation. It is also linked to widespread violence, massive displacement and broken families Other causes include a lack of policies that can efficiently deal with mental illness, psychosocial disability, domestic violence, child abuse and psychoactive substances abuse. Even the colonial past of the countries plays a role: racial inequality intersects strongly with homelessness. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has acted several times against states that had violently forced indigenous communities from their homes and traditional lands into a situation of ongoing displacement (Elguera, 2016). The same happens with black people. For example, in Brazil, black families are seven times more likely to be homeless than white families, and 67 per cent of the homeless in 2008 were black (MDSCF, 2009). Data collection on homelessness remains a challenge. The European Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) has greatly advanced this route by encouraging the adoption of shared definitions, methodologies and indicators within its 130 member organizations working in 30 European countries. This creates a common language that facilitates the exchange of information and permits a better understanding of the nature of homelessness as well as enabling wider solutions. In the rest of the world, such a common language does not exist. In most countries, data on homelessness is either disperse, scarce or nil, and when available, the national collections -each obtained by its own particular methodology- are hardly comparable. We propose this session as a meeting space in which existing research and data can be made known, discussed and shared. We also seek to promote the emergence of an international anthropological research network with a joint research agenda.Regístrate
51The kinship between anthropology and technology: exploring the accelerated interface between the two [Anthropology, Public Policy and Development Practice]44Indrani Mukherjeeisen.78.im@gmail.comRajanikant Pandey, Christina WassonAnthropology is a system of knowledge and a cultural heritage, which both encapsulates and gets enriched by technology. Simonic (2012) reflecting on technological impacts upon cultural heritage writes- “What used to be reified tradition has increasingly become a dynamic and active heritage that is constantly reinvented and constructed”. The panel seeks to capture these dynamics within the discipline of Anthropology, in today’s technologically accelerated and interconnected world. The panel at hand endeavours to explore both aspects (Effect of technology on anthropological heritage and effect on ‘anthropology of technology’) in a continuum from a critical point of view. The panel proposes a wholistic engagement to reflect upon · the engagement/kinship of anthropology with technology, its ability to transform the heritage of anthropological knowledge. · research pertaining to bio-politic engagements with technology and resulting shifts in anthropology of/in technology. · the innovative infusion of interactive and communication technology in research methods, creation of virtual spaces for collaborations, knowledge sharing and archive creation and access. · technological mediation in global anthropology as an integrating tool for spatial divides in disciplinary practices. · the risks, threats and vulnerabilities posed by the increased engagement with technology in the social sphere, in the methodological space and in issues of authority and authorship. · the ethical questions which are continuously a part of such an engagement and the need for policy incursions for the same within a contextual framework.Anthropology is a system of knowledge and a cultural heritage, which both encapsulates and gets enriched by technology. Simonic (2012) reflecting on technological impacts upon cultural heritage writes- “What used to be reified tradition has increasingly become a dynamic and active heritage that is constantly reinvented and constructed”. The panel seeks to capture these dynamics within the discipline of Anthropology, in today’s technologically accelerated and interconnected world. Technological developments in contemporary anthropology have certainly galvanized the inquiries of the ever-broadening canvas of humanity (1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion plus in 2020), though it has not been able to integrate the disciplinary divide in academic North and South. Covid-19 pandemic has further necessitated/accelerated our interface with technology and led us to re-evaluating our work culture, teaching pedagogy, research methods and writing, conference and symposia. Anthropologists in the field are encountering technologically mediated self and sociality. Life during pandemic is characterized by enhanced obsession with body, health and overt bio-politics. Social and physical distancing has led to increasingly innovative and interactive modes of interpersonal communication and outreach while it has simultaneously created an outcry towards intrusion and breach of privacy which were hitherto unimagined. This enhanced social engagement with technology which was already an ever-increasing graph has seen a sudden spike permeating all aspects of life, and is a significant phenomenon to take cognisance of. Technology has remained an interest for the discipline of anthropology as both a subject of inquiry and a mode of research but increasingly so in the present context. Technological mediation in global anthropology can be an integrating tool for spatial divides in disciplinary practices. The panel at hand endeavours to explore both aspects (Effect of technology on anthropological heritage and effect on ‘anthropology of technology’) in a continuum from a critical point of view. The present panel will reflect upon the engagement/kinship of anthropology with technology, its ability to transform the heritage of anthropological knowledge. It would focus on research pertaining to bio-politic engagements with technology and resulting shifts in anthropology of/in technology. The panel would outline the innovative infusion of interactive and communication technology in research methods, creation of virtual spaces for collaborations, knowledge sharing and archive creation and access. The panel would simultaneously create a platform to bring to the foreground the risks, threats and vulnerabilities posed by the increased engagement with technology in the social sphere, in the methodological space and in issues of authority and authorship. It proposes to bring to light the ethical questions which are continuously a part of such an engagement and the need for policy incursions for the same within a contextual framework.Regístrate
52Anthropological Perspectives on the COVID Pandemic: Impacts on society, culture, public policy and governance, and lessons for the future [WAU; IUAES Commission on Anthropology, Public Policy and Development Practice; WCAA Global Cultural Policies Task Force]45Thomas Reuterthor2525@gmail.comSoumendra Patnaik, Fadwa El Guindi, Vesna Vučinić Nešković, Carmen Silvia de Morales RialThe Covid-19 pandemic is a highly disruptive global crisis, touching nearly all aspects of human existence and changing many policy assumptions in transnational perspectives. Commentary has focused primarily on the spread of the disease, public health measures and the impact on economic life in western countries. At the same time, other dimensions of the pandemic such as the emergence of new socialities and inequalities, social disarticulation, the changing role of family and kinship and the transformed domestic and professional spaces mediated through technology, especially in developing countries, are largely ignored. Analyses will inform public debate and more balanced policies to meet this and other potential crises, bringing anthropological insights to bear on the challenges humanity is set to encounter in the coming decades. This session critically reflects on experiences of the COVID pandemic from multiple anthropological perspectives to extract lessons for the future from this crisis. It examines the varying impacts the pandemic has had around the world, the structural injustice it has revealed and the way it transformed social and cultural lives, as well as perceptions of other looming crises, such as climate change, food insecurity, and anti-democratic and anti-science populism.The Covid-19 pandemic is a highly disruptive global crisis touching nearly all aspects of human existence and changing many policy assumptions and transnational perspectives. Commentary has focused primarily on the spread of the disease, public health measures and the impact on economic life in western countries. Other dimensions of the pandemic such as the emergence of new socialities and inequalities, social disarticulation, the changing role of family and kinship and the transformed domestic and professional spaces mediated through technology, as well as the struggles of developing countries, are largely ignored. This session critically reflects on these experiences from multiple anthropological perspectives to extract lessons for the future from this crisis. It examines the impacts the pandemic has had, the structural injustice it has revealed and the way it transformed social and cultural lives, as well as perceptions of other looming crises, such as climate change, food insecurity, and anti-democratic and anti-science populism. Analyses will inform public debate and more balanced policies to meet this and other crises humanity is set to encounter in the coming decades.Regístrate
53The Anthropology of Disasters in Dialogue: Concepts, Methods, Definitions, Insights [Anthropology of Risk and Disasters]46Virginia García Acostavgarciaa@ciesas.edu.mxAJ and FaasIn this panel, participants elaborate upon the discussion around issues that have occupied the anthropology of risk, hazards, and disasters, particularly in Latin America. In addition to developing the conceptual frameworks and empirical terrain of disaster research, panelists will also build connections with other underlying disaster risk drivers —including environmental degradation, unplanned and rapid urbanization, climate change—while engaging conceptual, methodological and problematic links with related subdisciplines, such as ecological anthropology, medical anthropology, environmental anthropology, anthropology of landscape, and the anthropology and climate change.The publication of the book The Anthropology of Disasters in Latin America: State of the Art (Routledge, 2020), and its forthcoming Spanish version (Antropología de los desastres en América Latina: Estado del arte, CIESAS/GEDISA/ColMich), has established new directions in national and regional discussions on disasters. One of the main objectives has been to show that anthropological production in the study of risk and disasters is quite relevant and has been instrumental in discussions and progress made in Disaster Risk Reduction. Among the contributions anthropology has made to this field are a holistic perspective, the combination of research and practice, critical interrogations of the politics of disaster, investigating culture as a totality, and studying disasters and risk as historically produced. The two versions of this book include discussions in nine countries (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela) and a region, Central America (primarily Guatemala and Honduras), with diverse perspectives and analyses that call attention to important differences, cross-cutting themes, and future possibilities. Contributors to the book surfaced empirical and conceptual matters relevant to a range of situations that invite conversations with colleagues working in related contexts outside Latin America. Because of the extensive cross-fertilization between disasters research and cognate fields—ecological anthropology, medical anthropology, environmental anthropology, anthropology of landscape, the anthropology and climate change—contributors to this panel will reach across these divides to build sturdier collaborative relations and conceptual and empirical exchanges. This Thematic Table will work from themes developed in The Anthropology of Disasters in Latin America and convene those who work on the issue of risk and disasters in these and related contexts, with national or regional perspectives and that facilitate dialogue, discussion, progress, and the confrontation of abiding problems confronting scholarship and humans and nonhumans more generally. Papers that reflect encounters, dialogue and discussions between the anthropology of disasters and other relevant fields and issue areas are especially welcome. One of the objectives of this Thematic Panel is to identify and try to avoid the fragmentation of knowledge that, with different labels, in many cases refers to similar or even identical problems related, in this case, to risk, disasters and natural hazards.Regístrate
54Anthropology, Health and Differences: between agency and power relations47Priscila Farfan Barrosoprifarfan@gmail.comAsher Brum, Guilherme Rodrigues PassamaniThis panel aims to concentrate studies that articulate health, power relations and Anthropology in contemporary society. We propose to discuss different perspectives of health - macro aspects of power (State, public policies, borders, transnationalities) and micro aspects (daily manifestations). We will take into account social actors and institutions. Our panel aims the following issues: 1) col-lective representations, modes of subjectification, religiosity and its understandings on cultural pro-cesses of health and disease; 2) sexuality and gender, identity, risk management in the sex market and reflections on prevention or treatment of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs); 3) drugs, modes of administration of substances, care and treatment of users in health services. In this sense, our aim is to get together investigations that relate theoretically and methodologically health, its tensions, considering power relations and social markers of difference. Therefore, we aim works that dialogue with these issues and discuss ethnographic aspects, descriptive analysis to explain particularities and singularities of health field in Anthropology.This panel aims to concentrate studies that articulate health, power relations and Anthropology in contemporary society. We propose to discuss different perspectives of health - macro aspects of power (State, public policies, borders, transnationalities) and micro aspects (daily manifestations). We will take into account social actors and institutions. We consider non anthropocentric perspec-tive as starting point, which takes human and non-human as social actors in same network, here, in the field of health studies. Thus, social actors act in networks and interact with other actors. This theoretical perspective allows us to explain complex health realities without falling into traditional explanations based on dualism between “culture” and “nature”. Thinking of social actors' agency in the field of health allow us to consider relational agencies of things played among other social ac-tors. Thereby, our panel aims the following issues: 1) collective representations, modes of subjecti-fication, religiosity showing different understandings and cultural processes of health and disease; 2) sexuality and gender, explaining discussions related to identity, risk management in the sexual market and reflections on prevention or treatment of infections Sexually Transmitted (STIs); 3) the question of drugs, both in relation to modes of use of these substances as well as the care and treat-ment of users in health services. In this sense, our aim is to get together investigations that relate theoretically and methodologically health, its tensions, considering power relations and social markers of difference. Therefore, we aim works that dialogue with these issues and discuss ethno-graphic aspects, descriptive analysis to explain particularities and singularities of health field in Anthropology. The Anthropology of Health focus on expressive questions to Social Theory, so it is necessary to discuss critically classical issues and go beyond objectivist and psychological perspec-tives. In doing this, we could advance in analysis of power relations in its interrelation with health.Regístrate
55Heritage and essentialist thinking: Marginalising and resisting marginalisation through essentialised heritage claims [Marginalization and Global Apartheid]48Andrew 'Mugsy' Spiegelmugsy.spiegel@uct.ac.zaJonatan KurzwellyHeritage claims frequently appeal to essentialist images. Moreover they are commonly entangled in political agendas. Often those claims are used to fuel “strategic essentialism” and/or broader identity-politics contestations that can become destructively discriminatory. The panel will consider, for purposes of comparison, examples of essentialist thinking in heritage claims; and it will consider the extent to which, and under what circumstances, such thinking has led to destructive discrimination and/or to processes that preclude or limit such an outcome.Heritage claims almost always appeal to essentialist images. Such claims are made from a variety of positions ranging from relative privilege through to marginalisation. Yet all of them are entangled in diverse political agendas. Heritage can comprise ostentatious symbols of power which omit or outright marginalise others, or it can symbolise resistance. It can memorialise violence as well as resistance to, and perseverance in the face of, oppression. And it is often used to fuel “strategic essentialism” and broader identity-politics contestations, both of which, in turn, risk potentially reinforcing socio-cultural distinctions that bear the latency to become dangerous weapons of discrimination that can marginalise and/or reinforce marginality. The panel will include papers that use contemporary and/or historical data from any part of the world (a) to exemplify essentialist thinking as it permeates heritage claims and/or (b) to illustrate how essentialism-based heritage claims (i) have exacerbated destructive discrimination, (ii) have worked and/or managed to overcome the always lurking danger of destructive discrimination, or (iii) have, over time, been party to doing some of both. The panel’s immediate goal is to enable a comparative discussion of the role and consequences of essentialised heritage claims in diverse socio-political contexts. Its longer-term goal is to assemble an edited collection of articles for publication around the panel’s topic.Regístrate
57Anthropological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Latin American and Caribbean Seascapes and Waterscapes49Ana Isabel Márquez-Pérezaimarquezpe@unal.edu.coJuan Felipe Pérez-Díaz, Roberto Reynoso-AránA great diversity of cultural manifestations, such as fishing and navigation, show how human societies have not only made terrestrial spaces their life places, but adapted and transformed marine, island, coastal, riparian and aquatic spaces in various ways. Even so, the relations of humanity with sea and waterscapes continue to be understudied by science in general, and human sciences in particular. This is largely due to the terrestrial bias of contemporary Western ontologies, which associate social spaces with land; a world view which clearly reflects in much of the national and international ocean’s legislation, and have serious consequences on livelihoods dependent on sea and water. Notwithstanding, recent academic discussions, specifically within human sciences, in dialogue with social movements, have proposed more inclusive and interdisciplinary approaches and allowed the enrichment of narratives about these spaces and the people who inhabit them. Some paradigmatic concepts that contribute to these discussions have originated in Latin American and Caribbean anthropology, archeology and sociology, such as maritorio, acuatorio and amphibian cultures. Contributing to a better understanding of our geographies, historical evolution, populations and heritage. In this panel, we want to invite presentations from across the region that analyze or reflect on seascapes and waterscapes, maritorios and acuatorios, from theoretical and empirical perspectives. It is our aim to deepen these discussions and contribute to their visibility, both in academia and public policy; even more so if we consider that the lack of recognition of the existence of sea and water livelihoods and their linked spaces, has direct implications for thousands of people whose lives depend on the sea and rivers in Latin America and the CaribbeanA great diversity of cultural manifestations, such as fishing and navigation, show how human societies have not only made terrestrial spaces their life places, but adapted and transformed marine, island, coastal, riparian and aquatic spaces in various ways. In fact, the interaction of human beings with aquatic ecosystems has been fundamental for the building, development, transportation and expansion of ancient peoples and modern society. Even so, the relations of humanity with sea and waterscapes continue to be understudied by science in general, and human sciences in particular. This is largely due to the terrestrial bias of contemporary Western ontologies, which associate social spaces with land; a world view which clearly reflects in much of the national and international ocean’s legislation, and have serious consequences on livelihoods dependent on sea and water. Notwithstanding, recent academic discussions, specifically within human sciences, in dialogue with social movements, have proposed more inclusive and interdisciplinary approaches and allowed the enrichment of narratives about these spaces and the people who inhabit them. For example, based on ethnographic, archaeological and historical research around the world, anthropology and other related sciences have questioned the naturalized idea that oceans are empty spaces where human beings do not inhabit. Some paradigmatic concepts that contribute to these discussions have originated in Latin American and Caribbean anthropology, archeology and sociology, such as maritorio, acuatorio and amphibian cultures. Contributing to a better understanding of our geographies, historical evolution, populations and heritage. Considering this, it is essential to create spaces to discuss and socialize research on these topics (in progress or already completed) that allow deepening the reflection, from multiple approaches and in different temporalities, on aquatic spaces and the societies that inhabit, define and transform them. We are interested in discussing and making visible discussions addressing the maritorios and aquatorios concepts. Although these constitute Spanish neologisms, we consider them important as they seek to decentralize the analysis of the communities’ life places from the land (territory) towards the sea (maritory) and water (aquatory). In this panel, we want to invite presentations from across the region, that analyze or reflect on seascapes and waterscapes, from theoretical and empirical perspectives. It is our aim to deepen these discussions and contribute to their visibility, both in academia as well as in public policy; even more so if we consider that the lack of recognition of the existence of sea and water livelihoods and their linked spaces, has direct implications for thousands of people whose lives depend on the sea and rivers in Latin America and the Caribbean.Regístrate
58From leisure to work. New work-sport relations in times of hypermodernity50octavio mazaoctaviomazadc@gmail.comGertrudes Nunes de Melo, Giulyanne Maria Silva Souto, Omar PasillasThe purpose of this table is to discuss the role of recreational sport in the lives of individuals, interpreting these conditions from the perspective of labour market configurations and their objective and subjective demands. We propose a debate based on the understanding of sport as part of the process of civilisation proposed by Norbert Elias; as well as the interpretations that link sport with the processes of distinction based on Pierre Bourdieu, who assumes that sport seems to be a microcosm of society; and the various studies that lead us to the reasons for which individuals actively participate in sporting events. We use as a stimulus the practice of street racing, which has received an increasing attention from supporters, who (from our observations) relate these practices to the pursuit of health and increased productivity. We are interested in raising the issue of how the rationality of the use of leisure time mixes with ideas of work and productivity to generate something like a process of “disenchantment” (in Max Weber's idea) of leisure time in order to rationalise it in different ways. According to Le Breton’s proposal, the anthropology of the body is another field that provides possibilities for discussion, each practice implies a representation of the body, which must be analysed in order to understand these sporting practices. In general terms, it is a process that can be compared to Byun-Chul Han's Tiredness Society, where the administration of physical and mental health is entrusted in the hands of the subjects, in an infinite demand, which includes labour, social and sporting productivityMain topic Analyze the relationship between work and sport in terms of the demands of productivity and health in today's world. The purpose of this roundtable is to discuss the role of recreational sport in the lives of individuals, interpreting these conditions from the perspective of labour market configurations and their objective and subjective demands. We propose a debate based on the understanding of sport as part of the process of civilization proposed by Norbert Elias; as well as the interpretations that link sport with the processes of distinction based on Pierre Bourdieu; and the various studies that lead us to the reasons for which individuals actively participate in sporting events. We use as a stimulus the practice of street racing, which has received an increasing attention from supporters, who (from our observations) relate these practices to the pursuit of health and increased productivity. According to Le Breton’s proposal, the anthropology of the body is another field that provides possibilities for discussion, each practice implies a representation of the body, which must be analyzed in order to understand these sporting practices. In general terms, it is a process that can be compared to Byun-Chul Han's Tiredness Society, where the administration of physical and mental health is entrusted in the hands of the subjects, in an infinite demand, which includes labour, social and sporting productivity. Objectives a) To discuss the work-sport relationship, from a critical perspective that considers the enormous advantages of sports practice and the demanding conditions posed by the labour market. b) To analyze empirical studies on "fashionable" sports practices such as running, spinning, CrossFit and their relationship with the social demands of productivity and health. From a class and gender perspective. c) To identify emerging conditions of new forms of socialisation, new social subjects and problems that emerge from the generalization of these practices. d) To highlight the new forms of relationship with the body, which implies uses of the body, diets, image of the body itself. Sports are more relevant in this pandemic crisis. States and individual are urged to discuss new ways to understand health and activity. We are strongly convinced that a deep analysis of popular sport practices is required; besides the class relations they present, the structural conditions that push them, as well as the positive and negative effects they have on the lives of the subjects. In addition of the pivotal analysis of implications of gender in the practice of sport, which leads us to debates as relevant as the use of free time and issues related to care. This is a proposal that has been organized on the basis of the convergence of people who research from two complementary perspectives: work and sport, as a strategy to achieve a wide ranging reflection.Regístrate
59Traditional indigenous medicine: a living heritage safeguarding health51Maura Vázquez Vargasmauvav@gmail.comAlejandra Carreño Calderón, Juliana RosalenThis session seeks to promote the exchange of knowledge obtained by the anthropological study of the traditional indigenous medicine. Within the concept of traditional medicine, we include the knowledge that indigenous peoples have abut physical that indigenous peoples have about physical and emotional ailments, the wide set of healing practices used to treat and, or, prevent them; and the associated practitioners. Traditional indigenous can sometimes be thought of as an art craft belonging to the past, or, on the other hand as a new age tendency. Nevertheless, in many countries it is not only alive, but it is almost the only resource available, even used by non indigenous people. So, the traditional indigenous medicine is a complex mixture of antique knowledge preserved through generations; with creative solutions to contemporary health challenges as the Covid-19 pandemia has shown. As any living system, it changes and incorporates elements from other medical systems like biomedical, so the relationship between them is a matter of anthropological interest too. Moreover, as the UNESCO has stated, living heritage offers communities a sense of identity and continuity. And to the non indigenous people, it can promote respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.Health, disease and care processes within their social, cultural, economic and political contexts are complex objects of study of great interest not only academically, but also in the development of international agendas in search of treatment and prevention strategies for diseases. in contemporary populations. It is in these spaces where anthropological work can make contributions and be inserted into discussions about the why and how of a disease and its recovery, broadening the views that focus on these processes and reduce them to physical and / or biological phenomena. Through the understanding of the complexity that is part of the diseases within specific cultural contexts, anthropological approaches can contribute not only to the understanding of these, but also to the development of proposals for interventions that contribute to health care and health. well-being of the great variety of individuals and collectivities. The objectives of this proposal are to contribute to the debate on health and disease through the exchange of reflections arising from research within indigenous populations. The foregoing in order to give an account of the range that comprises the disease and its treatments, and placing these within their own frameworks of meaning and experience. Indigenous medical practices come from a wealth of knowledge regarding the person and their ailments, which manifest themselves in different ways and require particular forms of intervention, resulting in a great variety of shared therapies that interrelate, dialogue, confront, complement and they coexist within each town and, many times, outside it. The health needs of indigenous peoples are not fully covered by the hegemonic medical models that have spread and sought to homogenize the populations where they have arrived from institutionalized medical practice. This is where the importance of considering traditional indigenous medicine as living heritage and in constant construction lies, making visible the knowledge and therapeutic practices as resources and effective tools in safeguarding the health of their populations of origin and reproduction. Indigenous therapeutics encompass spectra ranging from symptom identification and diagnosis to intricate treatment and follow-up during recovery. In this way we also find a multiplicity of actors and connoisseurs of the health, disease and care processes that their fellow men go through: either within the patient's family, in extended kinship and filiation networks, and / or with ritual specialists and of healing.Regístrate
60Power Game and Symbolic Icons in Evolving Urban Landscapes [Commission on Urban Anthropology & Commission on Marginalization and Global Apartheid]52Giuliana B. Pratopratogib@gmail.comSubhadra Mitra ChannaUrban heritage, particularly historic buildings and landmarks that carry symbolic meanings, is an emotionally charged and often tension-laden territory. As such, it can generate conflict which often develops along political and ideological lines; for example, between the ruling elite and the broader society or between different groups of urban residents. The power game of symbolic icons and the role they play in the urban landscape across the world raise important questions on who is represented by them, and what changes in identity formation lead to the re-interpretation of these symbolic icons. These re-interpretations may reflect how changing power hierarchies affect the historical memory of the city’s inhabitants. They encapsulate a wide range of meanings at different moments of urban change and, in some cases, overlapping but contrasting meanings for different groups, including historical residents and newcomers, minorities and marginalized communities. Changes in the urban landscape and in the symbolic significance of specific icons may be determined by different factors. Politically- or ideologically-driven efforts are often made to erase or side-line certain icons (e.g., statues, monuments, symbolic buildings), or to showcase them in a renewed fashion – for example, by renaming historically significant urban loci (e.g., streets, squares, even entire areas) or using them in ways that would gain popular consensus, while hiding the intended political project and the direction of change. Parallel to these processes, new symbolic icons may emerge as a result of changes in cultural and moral values or of shifting power equations.This panel welcomes papers that address the shifting significance of popular icons and the emergence of new icons. Key questions that the panel seeks to examine are: • how different groups – including historical residents and newcomers; minorities and marginalized communities; historical and contemporary diasporas – contribute to the "history" and "identity" of a city, or of specific areas/quarters; • how and why the meanings attached to certain places or symbolic icons (buildings, monuments, urban loci, etc.) change over time; • how established elite or pressure groups use existing urban symbols or construct new ones in order to legitimise their position and gain popular consensus; • how the power games that are played out in legitimising processes make democracy precarious. Through in-depth ethnographic analyses of the above questions, the panel aims to contribute to debates on “morals of legitimacy” (Pardo and, more recently, Pardo & Prato) in relation to citizens’ rights, to the relationship between marginalized communities and the wider society, and to the dynamics of marginalization of “non-aligned” groups or individuals. The panel also aims to stimulate new directions in the study of the contemporary political rhetoric that drives the new “global templates” of urban regeneration and policies of urban change that often affect vernacular landscapes (Krase; Krase & DeSena) and targeted groups, especially though not exclusively marginalized communities. It is hoped that this panel will help to broaden the scope for future comparative research and theoretical development in anthropology, while contributing to develop a grounded understanding of the implications of these dynamics and processes for democratic governance. References: I. Pardo 2000. Morals of Legitimacy: Interplay between authority, responsibility and trust. In I. Pardo (ed.) Morals of Legitimacy: Between Agency and System. Berghahn. I. Pardo & G. B. Prato (eds) 2018. Legitimacy: Ethnographic ad Theoretical Insights. Palgrave Macmillan. J. Krase 2012. Seeing City Change. Routledge. J. Krase & J. DeSena (eds) 2000. Gentrification around the World. Palgrave Macmillan.Regístrate
61Governmental policies and power practices: connections, margins and devices53Sérgio Rodrigues Castilhosergiorodriguescastilho@gmail.comAntonio Carlos Souza Lima, Laura NavalloThis Thematic Table proposes, based on theoretical works and those that bring together different ethnographic experiences, the discussion of government policies and power practices that shape contemporary societies, with a focus on Latin America’s. We are interested in debating proposals that investigate different ways of producing objects and subjects of policies in different areas of intervention. These include the agents, collectivities and populations to whom such policies are addressed, whether elaborated by international agencies, international cooperation agencies, ‘civil society’ entities or state administrations. Themes related to forms of action and/or resistance to practices derived from the rise of new rights and extreme rights will be particularly welcomed. In this sense, policies are a means of inquiring about the ways in which subjections and subjectivities are formed and delimiting social, natural, cultural, political, ethnic and religious spheres on which administrative and governmental actions are directed. Therefore, we will seek to address the network of relationships and connections that are established between a varied and diverse set of social agents, through which power flows and is exercised.Anthropology of State formation processes and institutions has gained greater relevance in Latin America, especially over the last two decades. The proponents of this Thematic Panel are part of a network of researchers who, since 2017, have been in articulation to research and debate the various political and governmental manifestations around the practices of power. The present network (composed of researchers from Colombia, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina and, in the medium term, other countries – Working Group on Anthropology of the State and Institutions, Latin American Association of Anthropology, https://www.asociacionlatinoamericanadeantropologia.net/index.php/2016-03-16-03-49-05) concentrates on developing a more systematic analysis of various problems found in the studies of government policies, of social and economic institutions - which, by not being state-owned, share the exercise of state power - and, lastly, of new citizenship arrangements from different ethnographic approaches in Latin America (and elsewhere), in order to produce comparisons that allow us to advance theoretically and methodologically. The Brazilian members of this network also have a long and fruitful commitment to the Brazilian Association of Anthropology. The Coordinator of the Working Group of the State and Institutions (ALA), Dr. Antonio Carlos de Souza Lima, was president of ABA (2015-2016); the Brazilian Coordinator of the same group, Dr. Carla Costa Teixeira, is the current General Secretariat (2021-2022). Both have held various management positions and have collaborated in the construction of ABA since the 1980s, in which they were followed by other researchers and members of the group. The thematic panel GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES AND POWER PRACTICES: CONNECTIONS, MARGINS AND DEVICES aims to expand this network of researchers and expand the diversity of investigated political realities in order to contribute to the understanding of the complexity of state and institutionalization processes. From this perspective, we propose the discussion of government policies and power practices that shape contemporary societies, with a focus on Latin America’s. We are interested in debating proposals that investigate different ways of producing objects and subjects of policies in different areas of intervention. These include the agents, collectivities and populations to whom such policies are addressed, whether elaborated by international agencies, international cooperation agencies, ‘civil society’ entities or state administrations. Themes related to forms of action and/or resistance to practices derived from the rise of new rights and extreme rights will be particularly welcomed. In this sense, policies are a means of inquiring about the ways in which subjections and subjectivities are formed and delimiting social, natural, cultural, political, ethnic and religious spheres on which administrative and governmental actions are directed. Therefore, we will seek to address the network of relationships and connections that are established between a varied and diverse set of social agents, through which power flows and is exercised.Regístrate
62Exploring the potential of creative visual methods in creating worlds that upset the definition of possible54Angelica Cabezas Pinoange.cabezas@gmail.comLetizia BonannoThe panel wants to explore how creative visual methods and the stories that emerge from their explorations help us get access to and make “possible worlds” thinkable/visible. We suggest that creative visual methodologies are tools through which we can make imagined and possible worlds surface: as these worlds acquire novel materiality through-and-in images, drawings, films, performances and art installations, they become potentially shareable therefore knowable and accessible by others. Thus creative visual methods can allow us access other stories and other forms of storytelling about possible worlds; those worlds wouldn’t emerge otherwise. We draw from Verónica Gago (2019) call to push the boundaries of what we had been told to “believe and obey” in order to explore possible -and even utopian- worlds that visual methods can convey and unpack. We invite collaborations and reflections that upset the dichotomy between what is accepted as possible and what is assumed/supposed impossible.Creative visual methods can make of imagined/possible worlds something tangible, and by this “materiality” they can become part of an intersubjective or even collective experience (Abu Lughod, 1990). This transition from an subjective-only experience to an inter-subjective one through interconnection (digital or face-to-face) makes of that imagined world something closer to the realm of possible: it can be now discussed and collectively imagined and created. Although we live in a hyper interconnected world, we increasingly experience emotional disconnection. In order to confront today’s challenges we need to reflect on what seems to represent impossible solutions. In bringing into the conversation settled ideas about what is possible and impossible, we can envision impossible solutions and make them part of our collective struggles for more caring relationships and solidarity. We acknowledge that interconnectedness can create persistent feelings of alienation and disconnection, despite it gives us the illusion of endless access to others and other worlds. Despite this, interconnectedness [understood as access to means of communication] can also open up opportunities to find solidarity in unlikely places, which is in part what we would like to explore on this panel. What seemed to be impossible it is now happening and these time of unimagined crisis and catastrophe, should be confronted by pushing the boundaries of what we can do as anthropologists and social scientists, as active members of the reality that we are creating. Therefore we invite contributions and reflections from researchers, activists, thinkers who are exploring creative visual methods as a tool to re-define what is possible in times of crisis. We welcome papers and contributions centring on visual methods as a way to explore how interconnectedness can be turned into opportunities to recreate a sense of connection, solidarity and care.Regístrate
63Sports interconnections in a possible world [Commission of Anthropology of Sports]55Luiz Fernando Rojoluizrojo@predialnet.com.brJèrôme of SoldaniWhat is and what kind of practices and material things can be considered as a heritage? When anthropologists discuss about material and immaterial heritage, are generally sportive structures, infrastructures and practices enrolled in these debates? Which are the roles of sports in global interconnections in a possible world? Following the main theme of this meeting, these are some of the questions which our panel will propose to explore. In this panel our aim is to discuss how sports act or can act being a way for interconnection in the world, not only for specific groups, but for each social group around the world. From international megaevents, which put together thousands of athletes and other people around it, to the very individual practices, there are many cultural aspects enrolled in. Sports can be played by official teams and professional athletes, organized in international confederations, and following strict rules. But sports also can be, playing with distinctive style, adapted or deeply transformed by people to their own entertainment or to create practices more accurate to their expectations. Doing so, solidarities and rivalries can be created, emphasized, or abolished through sportive competitions which establishes or break up social ties between individuals, groups and nations. For this panel, we invite researchers to send us papers where sports practices and sporting venues can be so able to be nominated as part of a cultural heritage than any other, since they are part of what people consider as culture or their culture.What is and what kind of practices and material things can be considered as a heritage? When anthropologists discuss about material and immaterial heritage, are generally sportive structures, infrastructures and practices enrolled in these debates? Which are the roles of sports in global interconnections in a possible world? Following the main theme of this meeting, these are some of the questions which our panel will propose to explore. It was only in 1999, with the Declaration of Punta del Este from the Third International Conference of Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical Education and Sport (MINEPS), that a concordance emerged between sports, at that time only “traditional and indigenous sports”, and cultural heritage: “The Ministers support a policy of preserving and enhancing traditional and indigenous sports based on the cultural heritage of regions and nations, including a ‘worldwide list of traditional games and sports’, and of encouraging the holding of regional and world festivals”. Although, at that moment, there wasn’t a definition of what characterizes a modality as “traditional”, it was an official step – since the MINEPS is associated to the UNESCO – in the direction of including sports as part of cultural heritage. It was only ten years later that the current definition was put into an UNESCO document. In these debates, the voice of anthropologists was rarely listened. In this panel we want to discuss the relationship between this absence and a particular understanding of culture as “tradition” of the “Other” (indigenous peoples and traditional communities) and not as an aspect shared by all social groups in the sense that “we are all natives” as affirmed by Clifford Geertz. How this conception of culture, more relativist than universalist, contributed to exclude sports from heritage perspectives? And, from this point of view, what role sports can take within the process of heritage’s political construction? In this panel our aim is to discuss how sports act or can act being a way for interconnection in the world, not only for specific groups, but for each social group around the world. From international megaevents, which put together thousands of athletes and other people around it, to the very individual practices, there are many cultural aspects enrolled in. Sports can be played by official teams and professional athletes, organized in international confederations, and following strict rules. But sports also can be, playing with distinctive style, adapted or deeply transformed by people to their own entertainment or to create practices more accurate to their expectations. Doing so, solidarities and rivalries can be created, emphasized, or abolished through sportive competitions which establishes or break up social ties between individuals, groups and nations. Sports can be a key to understand emic and etic conceptions of culture or heritage. For this panel, we invite researchers to send us papers where sports practices and sporting venues can be so able to be nominated as part of a cultural heritage than any other, since they are part of what people consider as culture or their culture.Regístrate
64Heritage, an educational challenge for world citizens [Commission on Anthropology and Education, Commission on Documentation, WCAA Global Cultural Policies Task Force].56Giovanna Guslinig.guslini@gmail.comSabine Klocke-Daffa, Antonella Imperatriz TassinariThe educational challenge related to different heritages concerns not only specialists but every citizen. It therefore requires the consolidation of educational networks in many contexts, from the local to the global level, in the teaching and learning of anthropology in the broadest sense, in order to become world citizens. This undoubtedly refers to the academic context, but, in a logic of educational continuity and life-long learning, refers also and above all to what happens outside the universities, in schools of all levels, in an audience of all ages and non-professionals to reach. We invite to reflect and debate together on the following issues: 1. How to form a new educational dialogue on heritage taking into account the problems that have arisen during the Anthropocene? 2. How do anthropologists contribute to educational reflection while analyzing the complexity of the world today? 3. How are relations and exchanges developed in order to build a citizenship at different levels: local, regional, national, global? 4. How does anthropology intervene to apply its knowledge and expertise to multiple fields? How does it relate to other sciences to address the same problem? 5. What methods and tools do you want to emphasize? We warmly invite papers from anthropologists, interdisciplinary researchers, educators and educational communicators to focus on heritage(s) in formal, informal and public education, exploring past, present and potential future possibilities.The educational challenge related to different heritages concerns not only specialists but every citizen. It therefore requires the consolidation of educational networks in many contexts, from the local to the global level, in teaching and learning anthropology in the broadest sense, in order to become world citizens. This undoubtedly refers to the academic context, but, in a logic of educational continuity and life-long learning, refers also and above all to what happens outside the universities, in schools of all levels, in an audience of all ages and non-professionals to reach. We invite to reflect and debate together on the following issues: 1. How to form a new educational dialogue on heritage taking into account the problems that have arisen during the Anthropocene? Can education in a wide sense help to give value and life to the different types of heritage in a community? Can it help us face global threats such as loss of biodiversity, global warming, cultural and productive changes, extinction of indigenous languages, disregard for practices and knowledge? 2. How do anthropologists contribute to educational reflection while analyzing the complexity of the world today? We will consider different heritages, where many topics are articulated in complex, often conflicting ways at different levels. We will not only talk about institutionally recognized heritage, but also about the one which local communities themselves recognize as essential to strengthen identity and social cohesion. 3. How are relations and exchanges developed in order to build a citizenship at different levels? Local, regional, national and global issues are strictly connected. It’s important to develop new relations in order to face together the global challenges of contemporary social and environmental degradation, including the recent pandemic effects. Can a multi level citizenship help also to understand the interrelationships between environment, food, culture, human health and well-being? 4. How does anthropology intervene to apply its knowledge and expertise to multiple fields? How does it relate to other sciences to address the same problem? Interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches are essential to understand and problematise the concepts of culture, identity and nature in order to confront the knowledge and views of the sciences. Are these approaches also essential to treat other topics, like different types of heritage: natural, bio-cultural, tangible, intangible, industrial and post-industrial, for example? 5. What methods and tools do you want to emphasize? What teaching and learning methods are used in schools? What role does fieldwork play? What international skills do students need? What kind of teacher-training pathways should be developed? Do specialists write for public audiences? What opportunities exist for the general public? What findings come from the field of educational research? What didactic tools can be used? Technological tools, museum tours, library projects, theatrical performances, music, art, media, adoption of monuments, games... With the above in mind, we warmly invite papers from anthropologists, interdisciplinary researchers, educators and educational communicators to focus on heritage(s) in formal, informal and public education, exploring past, present and potential future possibilities.Regístrate
65Ethnography of Colonial Heritage in Contemporary Institutions57Vinicius Kauê Ferreiravinikaue@gmail.comFaten KhazaeiIn this panel we suggest tackling the remnants of colonial heritage in terms of representations and discourses and the ways in which they continue to shape and influence contemporary practices of public institutions such as academia, police, hospital and social services in Europe, but also beyond it. While institutions are increasingly subject to ethnographic analysis in different national contexts, these ethnographies remain very much embodied in the micro analysis of the present. The longer historical processes of meaning making, and the coloniality of power have been less focus of the research. We invite papers which focus on the colonial heritage in different forms, and the ways in which they are reactivated and re-actualized in contemporary state-run institutional settings. Our own take on the subject is through two different theoretical frameworks. On the one hand, the link between knowledge and power runs through our investigation of contemporary Western academic institutions and the ways in which the knowledge produced in the Global South but also non-western researchers are circulated, included or excluded from the global circles of knowledge production. On the other hand, we investigate how the colonial dichotomy of the “civilized Us” versus the “backward/traditional Others” runs through the practices of public institutions in contemporary Europe and the ways in which it shapes their treatment of different social problems such as domestic violence or children at risk. In this panel we aim to open a debate on the relation between historical colonial heritage and the ethnography/anthropology of the present. The idea is to study the still colonial framework of relations between the Global South and the Global North as a necessity for the creation of new global collaborations and interconnections for creating a possible world which better faces new global challenges ahead such as climate change, new pandemics and economic crisis.In the context of flourishing political|public anthropology, a vast and still growing literature has contributed to ethnographic perspectives of national and transnational institutions (Abélès, 2011; Fassin, 2017). Ranging from local State institutions - such as police stations and social security bureaus - to transnational institutions - such as the World Commerce Organization and the United Nations -, numerous scholars have taken issue with the power systems of bureaucracy, the agency of subjects in the face of institutional structures, indigenous diplomacy at transnational forums and the political appropriation of the State. However, despite this ethnographic turn of the institutional life, there has been very little discussion about how these very same institutions actualize long-lasting colonial mindsets through supposedly contemporary values and practices (Ferguson, 1990; Ahmed, 2012). On the one hand, such contemporary reiteration of the colonial spirit can be easily identified in many European institutional initiatives in the Global South through projects of “development”, promotion of human rights, certain educational initiatives, and philanthropy, but also within the European countries themselves when it comes to migration policies. On the other hand, neocolonialism might take subtler forms in less expected institutions, such as universities and social services, by means of its respective policies. In order to address this issue, we draw on two epistemological principles. Firstly, we make a case for a longue durée perspective that lays down a solid historical comprehension of how contemporary institutions came to be what they are today. We believe that any understanding of the contemporary requires a comprehensive historical perspective of institutional discourses and practices. Secondly, this analysis goes hand in hand with a postcolonial critique of the “coloniality of power and knowledge” (Quijano, 2000). As many authors have argued (Grosfoguel, 2007; Mignolo, 2007), the colonial structures of power were not wiped out with the formal end of colonialism, but still organize social life and forms of knowledge that are the basis of representations, language, and policies developed by contemporary institutions. This panel seeks for contributions that offer historical depth and ethnographic texture in the analysis of a taken-for-granted lexicon of transnationally and globalization that eludes mechanisms of actualization of colonial structures and neocolonial practices, and its effects upon people's lives. These are some of the questions we would like to bring to debate: 1. Is the contemporary opposed to the colonial 2. How are colonial heritages ressignified in|through nowadays institutions, including in countries that were not colonial powers or even those that were colonized 3. How the “decolonization” narrative has been appropriated in European universities as a way of dismissing structural debates on neocolonialism 4. What are the forms these colonial heritages take in different national contexts 5. What consequences these reactualization of the colonial past produce in the life of contemporary institutions and their activitiesRegístrate
66Heritage: the local and the global in pandemic times58alicia norma gonzalez de castellsalicianormacastells@gmail.comMonica Beatriz Rotman, José de Jesús Hernández López, Elizabeth Margarita Hernández LópezThe heritage field manifests extensions, adjectives, and interests that are periodically modified without a continual solution. It also has been receiving an inconstant emphasis throughout the last decades of the 20th century and the period of the first quarter of the 21st century. The patrimonialization processes are transversely crossed by multiple factors as a product of the socio-political and economic dynamics as well as consequence of the articulations between the global-regional and the local. We argue that such issues, when apprehended considering their insertion in multidimensional frameworks, allow us to propose geopolitics of heritage in which peripheral countries divert (purposely or unintentionally) the interesses of central countries (central-western Europe, East-Russia, USA and China), which does not imply in any way a mechanistic vision. In this sense, the context of all issues analysed is part of the knowledge production; it is not an external factor (Krotz, 1993). Currently, concerning the issues in the heritage field, the local-global link is a relevant topic (it is addressed either as a core aspect as well as a peripheral part of the work). Likewise, such a link conforms to a central postulate of productive theoretical-methodological approaches (the Political Economic, for example). In this Roundtable we are interested in addressing the local-global articulation in the heritage field, in the current situation of global pandemic (COVID 19).The heritage field manifests extensions, adjectives, and interests that are periodically modified without a continual solution. It also has been receiving an inconstant emphasis throughout the last decades of the 20th century and the period of the first quarter of the 21st century. The patrimonialization processes are transversely crossed by multiple factors as a product of the socio-political and economic dynamics as well as consequence of the articulations between the global-regional and the local. We argue that such issues, when apprehended considering their insertion in multidimensional frameworks, allow us to propose geopolitics of heritage in which peripheral countries divert (purposely or unintentionally) the interesses of central countries (central-western Europe, East-Russia, USA and China), which does not imply in any way a mechanistic vision. In this sense, the context of all issues analysed is part of the knowledge production; it is not an external factor (Krotz, 1993). Currently, concerning the issues in the heritage field, the local-global link is a relevant topic (it is addressed either as a core aspect as well as a peripheral part of the work). Likewise, such a link conforms to a central postulate of productive theoretical-methodological approaches (the Political Economic, for example). The theme of this Roundtable is to propose the treatment of local-global articulation in the heritage field, focusing on the current situation of a global pandemic (COVID 19). This circumstance challenges us, raises novel and diverse scenarios. It opens possibilities for the study of different (original or repeated) modalities in the links between the global-regional-national. These issues will provide inputs for future analyses that can transcend the aforementioned relationships to encompass other heritage topics. The academic and practical relevance of the proposed Table for Anthropology is clear. It is of great interest to address the aforementioned issue, dialoguing, exchanging experiences with colleagues from different countries, both on the theoretical modalities proposed and / or already adopted, as well as on the case studies that examine the local-global articulation, and particularly deliberating on the possible strategies to adopt in the current global pandemic situation (COVID 19). We also understand that this epidemic, which encompasses almost all of the hegemonic and subalternized countries, introduces relevant situations and elements. It may incite new reflections on the proposed link, enable an even more explicit view of international geopolitics and power relations, broaden the view on the relationships between individual and collective subjects and reaffirms the importance of the political dimension.Regístrate
67Heritage and work. Implications of patrimonializing on today [Enterprise Anthropology]59diego hernán varón rojasdiegovaron721@yahoo.esNadia Giral SanchoMany works, circuits, cities and intangible assets could not be patrimonialized without prior work. This symposium seeks to give place to work as a central mechanism to the production process. The object, the product, the result and not the means are patrimonialized. Work would be part of the emerging heritage, in this sense it can be seen as culture, identity, legislation and management. The discussion on the process of regionalization of heritage has a political and identity connotation, in the sense that the production of heritage distinguishes it from another. Heritage has several scales that start with something specific to sell the idea that it can be something national or even of humanity. Heritage is a social construct. From the conception of culture that exists in each period, we define what is heritage. This is built from the relationships that occur with work. It has to be inventoried, cataloged or certified to be recognized and consequently controlled. Specific recognition from the state, nation, community or citizens is required. If it is not done, it has less prestige. Their recognition depends on this. In this symposium we will try to answer the following questions: how is work patrimonialized in a business context, networks marketing and productive activities? What are the implications of patrimonializing work? What advantages and disadvantages are obtained by patrimonializing work?, and finally, what dichotomies underlie the patrimonialization of work (rural / urban, country / city, historical / cultural, primitive / civilized, popular / cult, cultural good / cultural value, inside / outside, local / global, tangible / intangible, restricted / open, old / alive in use, exceptionality / representativeness, risk of disappearing / preservation)?Many works, circuits, cities and intangible assets could not be patrimonialized without prior work. This symposium seeks to give place to work as a central mechanism to the production process. The object, the product, the result and not the means are patrimonialized. Work would be part of the emerging heritage, in this sense it can be seen as culture, identity, legislation and management. The discussion on the process of regionalization of heritage has a political and identity connotation, in the sense that the production of heritage distinguishes it from another. Heritage has several scales that start with something specific to sell the idea that it can be something national or even of humanity. Heritage is a social construct. From the conception of culture that exists in each period, we define what is heritage. This is built from the relationships that occur with work. It has to be inventoried, cataloged or certified to be recognized and consequently controlled. Specific recognition from the state, nation, community or citizens is required. If it is not done, it has less prestige. Their recognition depends on this. In this symposium we will try to answer the following questions: how is work patrimonialized in a business context, networks marketing and productive activities? What are the implications of patrimonializing work? What advantages and disadvantages are obtained by patrimonializing work?, and finally, what dichotomies underlie the patrimonialization of work (rural / urban, country / city, historical / cultural, primitive / civilized, popular / cult, cultural good / cultural value, inside / outside, local / global, tangible / intangible, restricted / open, old / alive in use, exceptionality / representativeness, risk of disappearing / preservation)? The emerging equity category is closely related to the risk society. Thinking of Ulrich Beck (1992), it is given the patrimonial seal so that the value of the process is not lost, since it is at risk. However, in traditional heritage studies the entire process is lost and only the product is taken into account. Preserving implies changing functions and meanings. Patrimonializing work would imply changing meanings, since they are not the same as in the past. It is a point of view and a different perspective of the people who treasure the skills and technical abilities necessary to carry out scarce work processes, and with great possibilities that their knowledge is lost as they disappear. The above is included in the terminology issued by UNESCO, as the main international institution that regulates heritage, and which has called it "Living human treasures". Nowadays, the need for the anthropologist to intervene in cultural heritage has become more evident due to its reference to the sociocultural context of the human groups, that it studies and work as an emerging human activity that is an important part of these processes and changes. It is precisely in the changes that lie the controversies and tensions that attract and interest to the anthropologists.Regístrate
68Objects: reflections from Anthropology, heritage, design and other possible disciplinary and global interconnections60Marina Laura Matarresemarinamatarrese1@gmail.comMercedes Martínez GonzálezThe purpose of this panel is to discuss the field of things and its complexity from different axes. Hence, it is oriented both: to reflections about the conceptual field and to concerns arising from different ethnographic practices. This proposal promotes, as well, the dialogue with other visual and projectual disciplines centered in the study of images and objects. The proposed dialogue covers both, the theoretical aspect and the possibility of introducing new methodological techniques in the study of objects. We are specifically interested in the production of artisanal and industrial objects, and on its meanings; this field of analysis is constituted by the reflection on the creation of materiality, its practices and techniques. Our interest is centered on the construction of the line between material and objectual heritage, we try to understand which objects are in this line, and which of them are not. Our purpose is also to reflect about the unequal footing and its agents in the heritage field of objects. By last, we would like to discuss the dynamics, changes and trajectories of artisanal and industrial objects in the framework of a globalized and interconnected world. For several years, the breadth of this topic and its complexity has been in the focus at different international and inter-institutional research projects and collaborative works, and has resulted in papers published in international journals and conferences. In this panel, we expect to go forward towards the consolidation of a deep reflection about a main subject for Anthropology: objects.The purpose of this panel is to analyze and interchange theoretical reflections, as well as fieldwork experiences, centered in the study of objects in different places, production systems and social groups -either in indigenous, rural or urban contexts-. As we know, the interpellation of things gives rise to reflections about production and its meanings in both, artisanal and industrial objects. The purpose of this research has been approached by Anthropology and by other professional practices focused on the analysis of materiality and its social life, like Design (following, Martín Juez, 2002; Gunn, Otto and Smith, 2013; 2016; Ingold and Gatt, 2013, Rabinow and Marcus, 2008; Escobar, 2018). Beside the anthropological theoretical focus, we want to discuss methodological techniques based in the study of objects in strain, between materiality and meaning; action and representation; nature and culture; mind and body; practical and scientific knowledge, considering, most of all, observation and description of the concrete and of those practices that involve the field of industrial and artisanal objects. Then, some of the questions that lead this panel are: Which possible meanings guide things in its practical, social and ritual functions? Which objects have the potential to become heritage? Which is the role of objects in material heritage? What kind of power relationships are involved in objects production, consumption and commercialization? How can object trajectories and transformations be analyzed, in particular, heritage crafts? How do different agents influence the field of objects and its trajectories? How can artisanal production and commercialization be analyzed? How are objects reconfigured in the light of a globalized and interconnected reality? It should be remembered that objects, as objects of analysis, have a trajectory as vast as the constitution of the discipline itself (see, for example, Mauss, 1925; Baudrillard, 1969; Appadurai, 1986; Gell, 1998). That does not mean that the theme is obsolete, nevertheless, after a period in which the objectual lost validity over other lines of inquiry, in the last twenty years, new and renewed theoretical frames center its analysis in objects (see, for example, Latour, 2005; Ingold, 2010; 2011; 2013; Tokoro and Kawai, 2018). Hence, it is important for anthropological sciences to continue strengthening these reflections, to update and create deeper analysis in changing and unequal contexts. From the above, we call presentations with proposals over the reflections from these different fields of Anthropology in dialogue -about objects, materiality, material heritage, crafts, industrial objects and techniques-. Priority will be given to those works that present innovative theoretical frameworks inscribed in the problems of a global context that, although enabling, is also increasingly unequal. Likewise, proposals that address objectuality from broad disciplinary project perspectives will be considered. Special consideration will be given to those contributions that, from an ethnographic perspective, account for the complexity of objectuality in its multiple edges.Regístrate
69Globalizations, interconnections and resistance: sport as a heuristic strategy [Anthropology of Sports]61Jorge Rosendo Negroe Alvarezjrgnegroe@gmail.comRicardo Duarte Bajaña, Kevin Daniel Rozo RondónThe globalization processes have re-signified several sociocultural dynamics that were assumed to be local, but also, the local permanently reconfigures global projects. These mixtures and tensions between the global and the local, although can strengthen the local cultural expressions, have also resulted in situations of acculturation and colonization. However, subjects and communities acting from the local or from the glocal are trying to question, from their rebellious or decolonial practices, these processes of domination. This forum it is proposed to discuss about these interconnections, rebellions and resistances that are configured in the face of globalization using the sport as an interpretive frame of reference. The social studies of sport are showing, with increasing force, that sport is one more scenario that allows approaches to the analysis, interpretation and understanding of different sociocultural processes. An example can be found in songs imported from other countries used by certain soccer fans. This incorporation, beyond replicating or adapting rhythms and lyrics, brings with it ways of seeing reality and establishing social relationships that go beyond conventional local forms. Another example is the Latin American transnational fans and their consumption of eurocentric cultural products. It has been shown that these intersections can have such divergent faces, ranging from what has been called neocolonization, to the radical criticism of these transnational fans of the political corruption of their local contexts. We are interested in making specifics casess visibles that lead to arguments and reflections about the interconnections, proposals and social resistances that develop within the framework of global or glocal relationships and that can be interpreted from the tensions that arise between colonialism, neocolonialism and decolonial positions. We request that these cases use sport as a heuristic strategy.The globalization processes have re-signified several sociocultural dynamics that were assumed to be local, but also, the local permanently reconfigures global projects. These mixtures and tensions between the global and the local, although can strengthen the local cultural expressions, have also resulted in situations of acculturation and colonization. However, subjects and communities acting from the local or from the glocal are trying to question, from their rebellious or decolonial practices, these processes of domination. These are very complex interconnections that even lead certain groups to question aspects of their local life and prefer to seek alternatives in global projects. This forum it is proposed to discuss about these interconnections, rebellions and resistances that are configured in the face of globalization using the sport as an interpretive frame of reference. The social studies of sport are showing, with increasing force, that sport is one more scenario that allows approaches to the analysis, interpretation and understanding of different sociocultural processes. An example can be found in songs imported from other countries used by certain soccer fans. This incorporation, beyond replicating or adapting rhythms and lyrics, brings with it ways of seeing reality and establishing social relationships that go beyond conventional local forms. Another example is the Latin American transnational fans and their consumption of eurocentric cultural products. It has been shown that these intersections can have such divergent faces, ranging from what has been called neocolonization, to the radical criticism of these transnational fans of the political corruption of their local contexts. As additional investigative cases that allow orienting the approach that this forum will have, there are critical analyzes of sport, seen as a series of market and competitive political structures that have been designed in certain countries of the global north and that end up being disseminated and repeated in many countries. Similar cases are found in certain social proposals based on sports that are built in local contexts and that are excluded by institutions in charge of designing and promoting patrimonial processes or sports mega-events following global guidelines and references. An additional case is the purchase and sale of players from the global south, often minors, to extract their workforce in countries with a business and scientific machine at the service of certain sports with global impact. We are interested in making specifics casess visibles that lead to arguments and reflections about the interconnections, proposals and social resistances that develop within the framework of global or glocal relationships and that can be interpreted from the tensions that arise between colonialism, neocolonialism and decolonial positions. We request that these cases use sport as a heuristic strategy.Regístrate
70Amerindian cultural heritage in the digital age. Perspectives, experiences and reflections around inequality practices [Museums and Cultural Heritage]62Margarita Valdovinosmargarita_valdovinos@hotmail.comBarbara GöbelSince colonial times, nations from the Global North have collected multifaceted evidence of the diversity of Amerindian cultures. Cultural objects and descriptions of related practices have been disconnected from their places of origin and relocated in infrastructures of knowledge such as museums, libraries and archives in European, North American and Latin American capitals. Nowadays, Amerindian Peoples increasingly claim their rights to objects that are relevant to their history and cultural identity not only through restitution of physical objects, but also taking advantage of digital transformation. The use of digital technology allows a faster and easier way to mobilize information, but it also has contradictory, even negative social effects: it deepens social exclusion (digital divide) and enhances fragmentation, while strengthening the hegemonic positions of central infrastructures of knowledge. This digital inequality has not yet been studied in detail. In this panel, our goal is to generate an anthropological reflection about actual inequalities as a kind of social practice implanted in those digital transformation processes around the management of Amerindian cultural heritage. We want to analyze both long-term persistent inequalities and more recent inequalities present in a broad range of digital initiatives. We therefore invite all those people working on reconnections, restitutions, reappropriations, and resignifications of cultural heritage to contribute with their presentations of concrete experiences about inequalities around Amerindian cultural heritage in the digital world to present their contribution in this panel. This discussion will contribute to the development of non-adversarial, collaborative strategies aiming at more consensual patterns of knowledge exchange and more extensive articulations between Amerindian communities and centralized infrastructures of knowledge.Since colonial times, nations from the Global North have collected multifaceted evidence of the diversity of Amerindian cultures. Cultural objects and descriptions of related practices have been disconnected from their places of origin and relocated in infrastructures of knowledge such as museums, libraries and archives in European, North American and Latin American capitals. Nowadays, Amerindian Peoples increasingly claim their rights to objects that are relevant to their history and cultural identity. Pointing at persistent exclusion, they demand that collections may be made more accessible and that they may be reappropriated, not only through restitution of physical objects, but also by dialogic and collaborative strategies that take advantage of digital transformation. The digital turn may have erased long-term established boundaries between diverse infrastructures of knowledge (Grau et al. 2017), different types of objects (artifacts, texts, images, recordings etc.) and even divergent management strategies of collections. It has also allowed a faster and easier way to mobilize information by creating open sets of data that migrate to more accessible digital hubs, databases and collections (Kremers 2020). Nonetheless, digital transformation has also brought contradictory, even negative social effects: it deepens social exclusion (digital divide) and enhances fragmentation, while strengthening the hegemonic positions of central infrastructures of knowledge (Göbel & Chicote 2017). In this context, inequality implies unequal access to technologies, digital objects and collections. It also means non-existent or limited possibilities of Amerindian Peoples to intervene in the management of those digital collections related to their own cultural heritage. This digital inequality has not yet been studied in detail. In this panel, our goal is to generate an anthropological reflection about actual inequalities as a particular kind of social practice implanted in those digital transformation processes around the management of Amerindian cultural heritage. We want to analyze both, long-term persistent inequalities and more recent digital inequalities present in a broad range of digital initiatives promoted by infrastructures of knowledge, researchers of objects and collections, and Amerindian communities themselves. We invite all those people working on the reconnection, restitution, reappropriation or resignification of Amerindian cultural heritage to present their reflections about concrete experiences of inequality practices found on the circulation of Amerindian cultural heritage in the digital world. The goal of this discussion is to contribute to the development of non-adversarial, collaborative strategies aiming at more consensual patterns of knowledge exchange and more extensive articulations between Amerindian infrastructures of knowledge (Scholz 2018)and those located in the local capital cities and those of the Global North. Grau, O., Coones, W. and Rühse, V. (eds.). 2017: Museum and Archive on the Move. Changing Cultural Institutions in the Digital Era. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Göbel, B. and Chicote, G (eds.). 2017: Transiciones inciertas. Archivos, conocimientos y transformación digital en América Latina. La Plata: FAHCE, UNLP-IAI. Kremers, H. (ed.). 2020: Digital Culture Heritage. Cham: Springer. Scholz, A. 2018: Tejiendo nuevos enlaces: la revitalización de una colección etnográfica por la plataforma Compartir Saberes. Mundo Amazónico, 9(1), 119-142.Regístrate
72Erotic affective diversity: pathways, practices, links and identities [Commission on Global Feminisms and Queer Politics]63Laura Mercedes Oyhantcabalmercedes.oyhant@gmail.comBlanca García Peral, Susana RostagnolThis panel aims to bring together research processes and discussions around erotic and affective practices and the way they affect the lives of subjects. Conceiving eroticism and affection as social and political fields, we propose to understand the manner in which erotic and affective dimensions are constructed in people's life trajectories. This panel seeks to research the development of affective and erotic bonds; from maternal/paternal-filial bonds, to bonds between couples, including different family forms understood in their broadest sense, to those that are generated during casual sexual encounters. We understand that all these are fundamental aspects of human sociability and that they develop specific pathways, practices and identities. Thus, we are interested in the social, erotic and affective pacts, arrangements and negotiations that come into play in the lives of people. We also welcome reflections on the way to approach erotic and affective research, emerging difficulties or situations and the way in which our own forms of bonding as researchers come into play during fieldwork, and what moral and the ethical dilemmas that this research entails and their impact on theoretical discussions. Finally, we are interested in theoretical contributions that dialogue with anthropology and other fields of knowledge provide with regard to erotic-affective bonds.This roundtable deals with erotic-affective links and practices and the pathways and identities developed around them. We conceive eroticism and affection as social and political fields. Therefore, we propose to understand the way in which erotic and affective dimensions develop in people's life trajectories. Thus, we understand that both dimensions are fundamental aspects of human sociability and that they help in developing pathways, bonds, practices and individual identities. In this context, our objective is to bring together research processes and discussions on erotic and affective practices and the way these affect the lives of subjects. This is a broad panel in which we seek to investigate the way in which affective and erotic bonds develop, from maternal/paternal-filial bonds, or a couple’s bonds or diverse family forms as understood in a broad sense, to those generated during casual sexual encounters. Thus, we are interested in understanding what social, erotic and affective pacts, arrangements and negotiations become part of people's lives. At the same time, we begin from an understanding of subjects as complex body-territories, where different political, social, psychological and emotional dimensions converge. We are interested in the articulation of these dimensions, to promote discussions from an integral, critical approach that allows us to consider subjects as intersected by axes of oppression like class, race, gender, age, etc., and geopolitics, in particular those that each space adopts in this modern/colonial world-system. In this sense, it seems fundamental for us to tend to the heteronormative mode of understanding and conceptualizing erotic-affective relations, as well as to discuss the way in which it might be challenged both by dissident identities and practices and by more hegemonic identities that have begun to politicize practices and bonds. We also welcome reflections on how we might approach erotic and affective research, what difficulties or situations emerge and how our own forms of bonding as researchers come into play during fieldwork, as well as what moral and ethical dilemmas these investigations entail, and how this impacts on theoretical discussions. Finally, we are interested in the theoretical contributions that dialogue with anthropology and other fields of knowledge provide with regard to erotic-affective bonds.Regístrate
73Anthropology and Popular Education: Mutual Involvement in Times of epistemic decolonization.64Ana Paula Morelanamorel@id.uff.brLuiza Flores, Maria Elena Torres, Mariana MoraThis thematic panel takes into account recent critical anti- colonial reflections that question the relationship between dominant knowledge and traditional knowledge of peoples and that ground these reflections in two disciplinary praxis, popular education and anthropology. We want to include reflections that place these fields in relation, presenting their affections and creative possibilities. We define Popular Education here in broad terms, encompassing educational proposals that start from (and in dialogue with) peoples' knowledge to build a critical and transforming gaze. We understand these proposals as part of the continuities and ruptures with the “popular education movements” that have gained strength since the 1960s in different Latin American geographies. With the upcoming centenary of the Brazilian pedagogue Paulo Freire, it is necessary to think about its contemporaneity, considering both its contributions to the anthropological field and the transformations that the decolonial criticism produces in the field of Popular Education. In this sense, the very notion of “popular knowledge” has been displaced by multiple indigenous, quilombolas, caiçaras, etc. knowledges. We seek to thus include, papers that think anthropologically the ways in which collectives and movements read and appropriate themselves of Paulo Freire's proposal and the “popular education movements”; works that transversalize issues between popular or grassroots knowledge and western knowledge. We consider this to be particularly relevant considering the challenges brought by the context of the COVID-19 pandemics. The panel will include papers whose protagonists are subjects who are developing and using transformative educational and / or anthropological methodologies, particularly black, indigenous, quilombola students in educational spaces; papers that have as a starting point discussions on “autonomous”, “emancipatory”, “critical”, “anti-colonial” educational practices; that produce counter-epistemological novel praxis for anthropology and popular education.By taking into account the growing decolonial critiques experiments on the relationship between Western knowledge and the knowledge of non-Western peoples, the purpose of this thematic panel is to think about the mutual implications between Popular Education and Anthropology. We are interested in bringing together series of papers that put these fields in relation, presenting their affections and creative possibilities, and thus the thematic panel itself a possible space for political and methodological creation in the fabric of these fields of knowledge. We define Popular Education here broadly, as a filed that encompasses different educational proposals that start from and in dialogue with peoples' knowledge so as to build a critical and transforming perspective. We understand these proposals to be situated from within the continuities and ruptures with the “popular education movements” that have gained strength since the 1960s in different locations in Latin America and in other parts of the world. Allied to the peoples' struggle for autonomy, these movements articulated critical and emancipatory training actions in the countryside and in the city, taking community bases as central to the teaching-learning processes. One of the main references of this movement is, without a doubt, the Brazilian pedagogue Paulo Freire, whose work has impacted well beyond national and Latin American borders. As his centenary approaches, it is necessary to think about the contemporary nature of his reflections on two disciplines that are the focus of this thematic panel: 1) the contributions of Popular Education to the anthropological field, given the relative absence of disciplinary reflections in relation to the contributions of the thinker, even at a time of growing discussions on cultural translation and the possibilities of political action within Anthropology; 2) the transformations, ruptures and extensions that the colonial criticism produces in the field of Popular Education, above all expanding the reflections on the effects of capitalism and colonialism from none- Westernized perspectives. In this sense, the very notion of "popular knowledge", "science", "education", "awareness", as well as the dualisms "nature / culture", "body / mind", "reason / emotion" and others founders of modernity, are displaced and put into perspective from the singularities of knowledge and teaching-learning processes indigenous, quilombolas, caiçaras, etc. When reflecting on the mutual implications between Popular Education and Anthropology, we seek to gather papers that think anthropologically as collectives and movements read and appropriate the proposal of Paulo Freire and the “popular education movements”; papers that transversalize issues between peoples' knowledge and western knowledge, also considering the challenges brought by the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; works whose protagonists are subjects that are transforming educational and / or anthropological methodologies, taking into account the growing participation of black, indigenous, quilombola students in educational spaces; papers that start from the discussion on “autonomous”, “emancipatory”, “critical”, “anti-colonial” educational practices; and those that produce a counter-epistemology and new practices for anthropology and popular education.Regístrate
74Indigenous peoples and processes of patrimonialization: Critical views on contexts, policies and conflicts65Melisa Ailén Roaroamelisa.iesjbj@gmail.comJulieta Magallanes, Patricia Ayala, Camila Gianotti GarcíaThe extension of the legal and regulatory framework on the rights of indigenous peoples in several Latin American countries led to the recognition of the pre-existence of these peoples to national States and generated public policies aimed at ensuring the enjoyment of these rights. However, implementations often encounter multiple limitations and contradictions in local areas. In the case of regulations related to archaeological heritage and intangible heritage, most States do not tend to provide legitimate instances and conditions for consultation (prior, free, and informed) and consent on the part of potentially affected indigenous communities and peoples. If we consider that heritage is, from its origins, closely linked to constructions of state identity and sovereignty, regulations and practices that classify and regulate all susceptible of being patrimonialized (territories, bodies, objects, knowledge) give place to a conflictive field in which hegemonic policies and guidelines are combined with appropriations, negotiations and resistance wielded by groups historically subordinated by state formations. Currently, we are witnessing the public emergence of alternative narratives and memories in which the historical review is central to vindicate worldviews, pasts and feelings of belonging silenced or confiscated. Given such contexts, we understand that the dialogue of knowledges allows the sharing of valuable tools to generate new knowledge and more horizontal relationships; which, besides contributing elements to the arguments raised by indigenous groups, contributes to decolonize the conceptualizations and logic involved in scientific research and patrimonial management. Therefore, at this table we aspire to share reflections that address scenarios of conflict (epistemological and ontological), disagreement, negotiation or consensus among indigenous peoples, state institutions, multilateral organizations, NGOs, private collectors, companies with interests on territories and resources, museums and academia, among other actors involved in the aforementioned processes of patrimonialization.The extension of the legal and regulatory framework on the rights of indigenous peoples in several Latin American countries led to the recognition of the pre-existence of these peoples to national States and generated public policies aimed at ensuring the enjoyment of these rights. However, these instrumentations often encounter multiple limitations and contradictions in local areas. In the case of regulations related to archaeological heritage and intangible heritage, most States do not tend to provide legitimate instances and conditions for consultation (prior, free and informed) and consent on the part of the indigenous communities and peoples potentially affected. If we consider that heritage is, from its origins, closely linked to constructions of state identity and sovereignty, regulations and practices that classify and regulate all susceptible of being patrimonialized (territories, bodies, objects, knowledge) give place to a conflictive field in which hegemonic policies and guidelines are combined with appropriations, negotiations and resistance wielded by groups historically subordinated by state formations. In other words, although the conjunction of governmental and scientific policies produces the processes of patrimonialization, aimed at legitimizing national histories and the enunciation authority of their spokespersons, today we are witnessing the public emergence of alternative narratives and memories in which the historical review is central to vindicate worldviews, pasts and feelings of belonging silenced or confiscated. In particular, indigenous claims to manage and possess ancestral materiality and knowledge –appropriated as state heritage or as world heritage, depending on the case– gain prominence in the framework of projects for political rearticulation and territorial recovery. In this regard, the complex procedures activated by indigenous communities and organizations in pursuit of the de-patrimonialization and the return of the human remains and funerary trousseau of their ancestors to the territories of origin (located in public and private museums, in scientific research institutes, in judicial deposits or in the hands of collectors) are increasingly significant. These restitution processes reveal different conceptions, logics and aspirations, as well as the particular trajectories that enable certain agreements and alliances while hindering others. Given such contexts, we understand that the dialogue of knowledges allows the sharing of valuable tools to generate new knowledge and more horizontal relationships; which, besides contributing elements to the arguments raised by indigenous groups, contributes to decolonize the conceptualizations and logic involved in scientific research and patrimonial management. Therefore, at this table we aspire to share reflections that address scenarios of conflict (epistemological and ontological), disagreement, negotiation or consensus among indigenous peoples, state institutions, multilateral organizations, NGOs, private collectors, companies with interests on territories and resources, museums and academia, among other actors involved in the aforementioned processes of patrimonialization.Regístrate
75The role of Anthropology in the Decolonization of Museums and Ethnographic Collections [Commission Museums and Cultural Heritage (COMACH)]66Mohan Kant Gautammuseums.iuaes@gmail.comSatya Narayan Munda, Suramya BansalThis Thematic Table intends to bring together anthropological experts who discuss the current issue about the decolonization processes of museums, both from a theoretical and methodological point of view. This theme is occupying a lot of research interest and many anthropologists in their universities and, above all, in the relationship with the managers of museological spaces, in order to adapt above all, the demands of indigenous peoples and other discriminated sectors of societies in different countries. The important paradigmatic International Colloquium “Témoignages et méthodes: le chercheur dans sa propre culture” took place in Paris, between November 12 and 14, 1982, promoted and organized by the Museum of Man, with an expressive participation of specialists from various parts of the world. This event was an important moment in the world of museums in the sense of seeking a turning point in relation to the process of museum decolonization. Since that date, countless other colloquia, seminars, meetings and meetings have taken place on this same issue and, therefore, which has been followed with great attention by the numerous panels organized by COMACH within the scope of IUAES, in the last decades. What is perceived is that museums are trying to face the challenge of decolonizing their own institutions. However, the very meaning of “decolonization” is being widely debated in different academic spaces. The IUAES Committee on Museums and Cultural Heritage (COMACH) is witness to this debate mainly between anthropologists and museologists, which has been going on since the end of the eighties. Anthropologists commonly translate this debate as a process that institutions go through to expand the perspectives, they portray beyond those of the dominant cultural group, particularly of Western colonizers. Therefore, the anthropological discussion about the decolonization of museums cannot be limited to the debate about colonial cultural objects.The forums for anthropological discussion on decolonization and the future of these museums are much broader than, in reality, one can imagine. The objects and collections of these museums and their return to their countries of origin, is only one aspect in the scope of this discussion. Repatriations have been taking place since the 1990s (in different models) and have already started in many countries and, above all, cannot be associated with this wide and necessary project to decolonize museums. Many museums have legacies rooted in colonialism; their collections donated or sold by collectors who benefited from colonial empires. Many of these collectors saw their efforts as a way to preserve the past, believing that indigenous peoples, for example, would disappear into obscurity. For, the debate around the arguments that returning contaminated colonial collections is not the only way to resolve issues that are linked to colonial museological narratives, it is to reduce the need for a broad discussion on the role of these museums. It is believed that this is not just about changing the definition of a museum. This debate goes deeper and goes beyond an agreed “global” definition. Much of the debate is about how museums treat indigenous peoples and other minorities in their collections and expographic narratives. Others argue that the objects and collections of indigenous peoples tended to be in ethnographic museums, not art museums. In reality, this distinction helps to perpetuate the idea that these cultures are no longer living or continuing their traditions, as if these peoples are missing. Many anthropologists struggle against this mentality and try to show the relevance of indigenous peoples, their cultures and current traditions. The contributions of this thematic table could give a clue to analyze the complexities of the current debate that go beyond questions of return and historical repair of such objects. The focus of this debate should be on the practice and mentality present in museums mainly European and the extension of that debate in Europe to the political and public domains. The other contributions will reveal other complexities. In general, the discussion of colonial cultural objects concerns predominantly the meanings of the objects and the underlying structures of domination. Some museums are developing strategic plans to reformulate their collection design and audit the institutions as a whole. And, above all, evaluating their own relationship with their objects and changing the view of the Museum as the owner of objects for, for example, guardians of these collections, with an obligation to the people who created the objects and stories, and to their descendants. And so, helping the museum to understand the diversity of its own collections, something the museum has never really known before. This is just one example of issues embedded in the decolonization processes that make museums able to give protagonism to indigenous peoples. Therefore, much is expected from this thematic table to provide clues for a better understanding of these museum decolonization processes.Regístrate
76Indigenous peoples responding to the Covid-19 in Americas: dialogues towards the decolonization of global health [Commission of the Anthropology of Pandemics]67Amanda Horta amanda@pari-c.orgChristine McCourt, Francineia Bitencourt Fontes, Sandra BenitesIn this thematic panel, we invite you to send papers on the different experiences of indigenous peoples in the Americas against the new coronavirus pandemic. Ethnographic exercises and anthropological analyses in a broad sense will be welcomed. Therefore, we also include works originating from remote monitoring and communitarian engagement in combating its effects. The participation of indigenous anthropologists is encouraged. The reports and analyses already published during the pandemic have highlighted the active role of communities in tackling the pandemic, creating a series of their own strategies, ahead of the inaction or inefficiency of public / state health systems. Communities and peoples often question and propose the reformulation of these services. At the thematic panel we seek to discuss the extent to which these formulations are connected and how they can contribute to the discussions on the so-called “global health”. Some thematic axes have emerged from the first reports available: health, care and death; mobility and circulation; gender issues. The first axis concerns the cosmological aspects of the relationship with Covid-19, the knowledge and healing practices of the peoples, as well as the experience of mourning and the ritual ways of dealing with death in the face of the pandemic. The second deals with the impacts on the complex interweaving between, on the one hand, the dynamics of dispersion of the virus and, on the other, indigenous modes of mobility across different territories and spaces and the circulation of things and goods on their lands. The third axis seeks to apprehend the impact of the pandemic on the lives of indigenous women and their role in social arrangements to face Covid-19. Additional axes of analysis are welcome, in order to contribute to the broadening of the discussion on the relations between indigenous proposals and the field of global health.This proposal seeks to contemplate the multiplicity of territorial agencies of indigenous lives in the Americas and their multiple reactions to the pandemic – indigenous people in cities, mountains (sierras), forests, villages, communities, territories in regularized land status or not. Likewise, we seek to traverse the integration / isolation binomial in a transversal way, also contemplating different agencies in relation to governments and non-indigenous populations in pandemic times. The proposed works may contemplate both indigenous participation in public health policies and perspectives and actions aimed at an autonomous life horizon. Mourning is certainly one of the marks of these times, which, however, reveal (in contrast) a marked indigenous resilience and vitality. These movements include fundamental proposals for the global health debate. A UN report recently recommended the need to include “culturally appropriate responses and traditional indigenous health professionals” in actions to combat the pandemic. Similarly, WHO recommends that agencies “include representatives of indigenous peoples, leaders and traditional authorities in the emergency and health response” to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this sense, international organizations corroborate the need to make indigenous health actions visible at the local level. At the same time, in countries like Brazil, indigenous responses to the pandemic often include intense criticism of public actions. In several documents of the indigenous movement, the federal government has been accused of promoting a “genocide policy” through its omission and unwillingness to dialogue. In Canada, the indigenous movement denounces how deep inequalities related to socioeconomic determinants expose indigenous communities to unequal risks in relation to the rest of the population. On the other hand, in countries like Ecuador, communities have observed that prevention measures they have established autonomously can result in Covid occurrence rates below the country's average. The thematic panel, in this sense, proposes to collaborate for the composition of an enlarged view on this diversity of reactions and the varied interactions that the indigenous movements maintained with state bodies and civil society, at the local, regional, national and global level. In our view, by promoting this kind of international forum of discussion on health systems grounded on indigenous actions and knowledges, the field of global health can make decisive contributions.The contribution of anthropological research and indigenous knowledge that we seek to bring to the debate at this panel is placed on this horizon.Regístrate
77The future under debate: anthropological views68Delázkar Noel Rizo Gutierrezdelazkar.rg@gmail.comJavier Serrano, Carlos Casas, Eduardo ZárateAs anthropologists we’ve paid special attention to the past and the present following an academic tradition, neglecting the field of study that the future provides. The discussion about futures as an object of study is still recent in anthropology and still lacks a particular theoretical artifact. However, to include the discussion of temporalities and the future in ethnographies is not an ephemeral response to the current conditions of humanity but rather a methodological proposal of how to understand changing dynamics in human societies and the environment. Every time a crisis is renewed or a new one appears, observing the future is a window to understand the possibilities of change that social groups consider. Here the social utopias appear with greater force because they harbor imaginations, dreams, desires and nostalgia, which highlights the need to revisit concepts such as hope, coexistence and community. At the same time, the dystopian scenarios today resonate with greater intensity the problems of the Anthropocene, increasing uncertainty, fear and feelings of risk towards the future, since environmental, migratory, political, biodiversity and natural resources conflicts are globalized in any corner of the world. In this sense, the current peak of environmental, migration, political and democratic problems are the basis of a current discussion necessary in anthropology to understand the new social processes and responses that are being developed from communities to institutions, from localities to globalities. This roundtable will be open to receive papers that address the topic of the future, including utopias, dystopias, environment, aspirations, narratives and others. Priority will be given to those works with empirical references, from an ethnographic and theoretical perspective.This roundtable aims to open a debate on how to approach the future as an object of study from anthropology (Appadurai; Bryant y Knight; Nielsen; among others). The second half of the last century showed that social and humanistic disciplines needed a reinterpretation of their epistemic, ethical, and methodological stance (Bruner; Clifford, Marcus). The proposals for an ontological turn in anthropology (Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Viveiros de Castro) and the critique of historiography on postmodernism and anthropocentrism (Hayden; Domanska) have allowed us to visualize an interesting field of study in which the future is an ongoing production, as well as the past and the present. To incorporate in the ethnographic analysis the interaction between different forms of life is thinking in other ways of making history, of narrating it and to view the subjects from another angles. Although observing the past and present of human groups was a cornerstone in twentieth-century anthropology, it is essential to consider that human societies also project into the future, visualize it, represent it and experience it in ways that have not yet been systematically considered. In this case, it is profitable to review the way in which utopias and dystopias unfold in the world because they are part of the narrative composition of societies, becoming part of their symbolic and singular distinction; it is necessary to discuss how they are references in the particular and how they intersect in the global. Hope, nostalgia and life projects are key concepts to understand these dynamics. The alerts about a civilizational and environmental crisis from different parts of the planet reflect the uncertainty and fear with which many populations live in daily life (Ingold; Tsing). Here lies a field of particular interest for anthropologists, since studying the future will allow us not only to explore dynamic reinterpretations of the past and present, but also the fluid and frictional relationships that spread between technological resources, popular knowledge, environment, politics and economics. Our main objective is to discuss through different ethnographies what tools and theories serve us to approach utopias, the possibilities of change and the future as an object of study. We foster an empirically-based interdisciplinary discussion to make an experimental approach to future and utopian studies.Regístrate
78Cultural Heritage dynamics, performances and artistic expressions in urban contexts [Intangible Cultural Heritage]69Renata de Sá Gonçalvesrenatagoncalves@id.uff.brJulieta Infantino, Hernán MorelThe Panel "Cultural heritage dynamics, performances and artistic expressions in urban contexts" develops a debate on cultural policies, intangible heritage and artistic practices in urban contexts and social circuits, considering different conceptual analysis, methodological and ethnographic approaches. The aim of this Panel is to focus on how cultural productions and performances of different social and artistic groups are articulated and tensioned by state agencies, international organizations, the market and cultural movements. We try to establish a comparative interface between different anthropological perspectives on the use of public spaces, cultural heritage and artistic performances, especially in their relationship with the state and public policies trying to understand how they mobilize political, cultural, organizational, economic and labor resources. Likewise, we promote a discussion on social participation and political intervention that unfolds from interconnections between different global and local scenarios of political action, recognition of fundamental social rights, and strategies for visibility in public spaces in different urban contexts. The Panel also focuses on actors and social groups involved in the cultural and intangible heritage field, their diverse knowledge, experiences and perspectives. Finally, we intend to generate a debate regarding the public role and performance of anthropologists in contemporary public policies, mainly those focused on artistic-cultural practices and intangible heritage.The proposed Panel aims to stimulate the debate between different researchers through comparative analyses on cultural heritage contemporary dynamics and artistic expressions in different urban contexts. The aim of this Panel is to focus on how cultural productions and performances of different social and artistic groups are articulated and tensioned by state agencies, international organizations, the market and cultural movements. We try to establish a comparative interface between different anthropological perspectives on the use of public spaces, cultural heritage and artistic performances, especially in their relationship with the state and public policies trying to understand how they mobilize political, cultural, organizational, economic and labour resources. Likewise, we promote a discussion on social participation and political intervention that unfolds from interconnections between different global and local scenarios of political action, recognition of fundamental social rights, and strategies for visibility in public spaces in different urban contexts. The Panel also focuses on actors and social groups involved in the cultural and intangible heritage field, their diverse knowledge, experiences and perspectives. Finally, we intend to generate a debate regarding the public role of anthropologists in contemporary public policies, mainly those focused on artistic-cultural practices and intangible heritage. In particular, this Panel arises from a research network integrated by anthropologists from Brazil and Argentina, with vast experience in the anthropological study of artistic practices in Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires (tango, zamba, murga, circus, carnival) and its relations with the two countries' cultural and heritage policies. As part of this network, we hope to continue a series of meetings, debates, experiences and reflections that we have been developing over the years in Panels and Round Tables that we have coordinated in different conferences since 2015 (RAMs, ALAs, IUAES). The convenors have teaching and research experience on the subject of intangible heritages, and have produced bibliographic dossiers and articles, as well as orienting master's theses and doctoral students. One of the convenors currently coordinates the Heritage and Museum Committee of the ABA - Brazilian Association of Anthropology.Regístrate
79Whose heritage? Diversity and voice in the construction of heritage (Sahara, Sahel)?70Giulia Gonzalesgiulia.gonzales.1@gmail.comClare OxbyThe concept of heritage provides fruitful understandings of current political, socio-economic, cultural and moral dimensions. However, as Ben Hounet and Guinand (2016) underline in relation to pastoral Muslim communities, there is a need to historically contextualise local forms of heritage. This panel intends to address this gap in the literature by focusing on locally-contested forms of heritage and processes of heritage-making in the Saharan-Sahelian regions. These areas have been undergoing fundamental transformations (e.g. gradual integration within il/legal global capital fluxes, changes in state infrastructures, environmental rearrangements in land rights and the right to mobility) which have triggered shifts in people’s ways of dwelling, livelihoods, and interactions. By looking at who/what specific local heritages represent and legitimate, and their interdependence with memory, conflict and loss (Rowlands and De Jong, 2008), this panel invites papers that enquire across established categories of analysis, for example rural/urban, nomadic/sedentary, ethno-linguistic, local/global ones, which are embedded in current hegemonic conceptualisations of heritage. It particularly wishes to reflect on the concepts of mobility and violence, which challenge current methodological assumptions and reveals the need to reframe understandings of (in)tangible heritages. This analytical re-orientation can foster transnational conceptualisations of heritages that address dynamics from the local to the global scale. For example, it calls for an analysis of UNESCO’s interventions on both tangible (e.g. artifacts) and intangible heritage (e.g. poetics, music) and its problematical attempts to partimonialise them.This panel calls for local case-studies based on fieldwork or institutional archives. It suggests the primacy of heritage-making in shedding light on current transformations of practices, properties, and imaginaries in the Sahara-Sahel and calls for a heritage-informed understanding of expanding power-imbalances in these regions.The concept of heritage provides fruitful understandings of current political, socio-economic, cultural and moral dimensions. However, as Ben Hounet and Guinand (2016) underline in relation to pastoral Muslim communities, there is a need to historically contextualise local forms of heritage, in contrast to institutionalised fixed notions of heritage based on idealised dichotomous categories. The panel “Whose heritage? Diversity and voice in the construction of heritage” addresses a range of different subjects and objectives, relevant to anthropological sciences. First, it is relevant to the subject of anthropology by enquiring into heritage-making processes across established categories of analysis, for example rural/urban, nomadic/sedentary, ethno-linguistic, local/global categories, which are embedded in current hegemonic conceptualisations of tangible and intangible heritage (Herz et al. 2018). By doing so, it unpacks those same established categories which are informing institutionalised conceptualisations of heritage. It sheds light over processes of affirming local identities and it ties them to contested notions of heritage (Rowlands and De Jong, 2008; Scholze, 2008). The dimension of conflict is then represented, contributing to the understanding of local politics and winner/looser participants in the bargaining of heritage projects (e.g. linked to tourism, building of national parks). Also, by looking across the Saharan-Sahelian regions, this panel will automatically enquire into processes of regionalisation, through heritage-making lenses. This is relevant in the case of Saharan and Sahelian regions which have been academically, geographically and culturally divided between Northern Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. By looking at heritage, the continuity between these regions will be evident, together with forms of local politics, family links, economies which tie these areas together. Linked to these processes of regionalisation, this panel’s academic relevance addresses processes of ethnicization, which inscribed to a fixed ethnicity a specific heritage and a specific place. This panel wishes to address a continuity across those boundaries. Institutionalised heritages emerge from processes of fixing and bounding specific practices to a population. The practical relevance of this panel would be to inform international organisation (like the UNESCO) that such processes can result into conflicts, and that local politics need to be taken into consideration when conceiving and implementing heritage-policies. In that, social anthropologists have a role in facilitating and mediating the views of underrepresented groups by status, age, or gender. Lastly, in a time of growing social inequalities, the importance of understanding constructions of heritages is fundamental: this panel calls for an implementation of anthropological studies to inform institutions and policy-makers especially on the issues of diversity and inclusion/exclusion.Regístrate
80Challenges for kinship studies in the twenty-first century71David Robichauxdavidrobichaux@hotmail.comJavier Serrano, Juan Carlos Rosario, Juan Pablo FerreiroIt is well known that anthropology as an academic discipline developed in the context of nineteenth-century evolutionist theory, in conjunction with an interest in kinship. Entering the third decade of the twentieth century, that early fascination has given way to other topics and problems debated among anthropologists. Have family and kinship ties weakened as relations become fragmented and individualization sets in with modernization? Can a contemporary anthropology that pays no attention to kinship exist? Two sets of reasons lead in the opposite direction. First of all, there are still many debates that have still not be adequately resolved and, secondly, there is no unanimous consensus on basic concepts. With early beginnings in the so-called “primitive” societies, much remains to be researched and said regarding the different ways in which kinship is expressed in today’s world and its articulation with other critical aspects of social life. Ethnographic research has continually shown that, in very different contexts, both rural and urban, kinship is an important principle in organizing society in family groups, while of unquestionable importance in individuals’ emotional life. This session seeks papers developing a theoretical reflection grounded in fieldwork. We welcome topics such as domestic groups, local kin groups, kin networks, ritual kinship and papers describing and analyzing them with field data.Although kinship studies, as understood in the mid-twentieth century, can no longer be described as the basic topic of anthropology as the nude is to art, or logic is to philosophy, as Robin Fox once confidently did, many aspects of what has been called kinship still constitute grey areas of our knowledge and merit research. The major critiques by David Schneider and Rodney Needham in the last third of the twentieth century are often regarded as the intellectual markers in the decline of kinship studies, but the situation is far more complicated. Schneider’s critique had the positive effect of paying more careful attention to cultural concepts, but also gave a reduced role to field data to the complete exclusion of what people do with kin. Needham’s critique rejects the notion of a kinship system as an integrated whole and emphasizes the impossibility of a theory of kinship. Later critiques have stressed gender issues, emerging family forms and questions related to assisted fertilization and surrogate parenthood. Some of these critiques have led to research that has shed light on many of these topics, many questions regarding kinship practices remain unanswered. This is not a chance happening, but a direct consequence of a tendency in anthropology, espoused by Schneider, to favor collection of “culture” as opposed to practice. The negligence of studies of what people do with and about kin has resulted in a paucity of knowledge and understanding of kin relations and an overemphasis on ideal models. Methodologically, it is thus considered important to discuss and compare concrete practices taken from original field data in the light of the mentioned critiques of kinship studies and other perspectives. By centering on practices, it is considered that anthropologists will be in a better position to build theory and pose targeted questions for future research. Furthermore, the focus on the concrete allows anthropologists to engage in discussions with other disciplines that study the residential family, part of what is included under the heading of kinship.Regístrate
82Transient birds, horizontal reflection on cross-border migrations73Inés Cornejo Portugalicportugal@hotmail.comCornelia GiebelerThe panel attempts to analyse and exchange different approaches with migrants leaving the global south to the global north of the United States. The question lies in the approach and exchange within migratory nuclei or flow as a researcher, to provide a grounded view for the micro processes of transnational migratory flows. This attempt particularly focuses on inviting participants whose various presentations are related to communicative and cultural products (Instagram, podcast, photographic and video graphic records, among others). Included are those presentations that account for diverse migratory processes and their stages, such as the decision to leave, the journey, the brief or prolonged stay in the United States, and the return to their community or birthplace. It is an attempt to develop new questions and build knowledge together with co-researchers. We discuss the research procedure from horizontality and equity, abandoning the hegemonic place assigned to a researcher by the academic institution.This roundtable brings together researchers who analyse and study Latin American and African migrants to the United States in a participatory manner. The purpose is to share in horizontal reflections that question, the position of the researcher from a co-labour perspective, as well as the development of empirical data, the relationship with the migrant-other and the conceptualisation of what some analysts call a feeling of "strangeness". In this sense, we ask ourselves what it means to observe, to analyse, to study from the view of a "social scientist" who is who in the research process. Moreover, what does social origin, ethnicity, skin colour, gender, nationality, self-assignment of subaltern or hegemonic roles, as well as status have to do with the researcher-researched relationship? This attempt particularly focuses on inviting participants whose various presentations are related to communicative and cultural products (Instagram, podcast, photographic and video graphic records, among others).Included are those presentations that account for diverse migratory processes and their stages. This refers to the decision to leave, the journey, the brief or prolonged stay in the United States, and the return to their community or birthplace The objective of the roundtable is to provide an account of the migratory process in general terms. Likewise, it is a critique of macro theories in particular, to understand and explain the position of the researcher related to the construction of empirical data of this process. Secondly, how the social analyst lives, experiences and relates to the "other". That is to say, the migrant person, in order to construct, analytical co-labour, such migratory process. Thus, we invite social analysts who respond to these questions in one way or another, to the role of the researcher, the horizontal construction of the research process in the relationship with the "other" in scientific practice. Thus, we will forge new questions to approach and build together empirical evidence and knowledge from the co-researchers' own knowledge. Both of us will benefit from this proposal for the horizontal research of equity, abandoning the hegemonic place assigned to the researcher by the academic institution.Regístrate
83Ethnographic Audiovisual Archives: Indigenous People and Restitution of their Cultures [Commission of Museums and Cultural Heritage (COMACH)]74Rad Minaeventminarad@gmail.comSoheila Shahshahani, Denise Machado Cardoso, José Da Silva RibeiroThis workshop aims to discuss efforts made by anthropologists for the restitution of indigenous peoples to have access to audiovisual and documental sources of their communities. Ethical and methodological issues will be brought up.Nowadays,there are a variety of ways to conduct field research with indigenous populations, mainly due to new technologies, but mainly because there are many indigenous anthropologists who are also working on ethnographic research among their peoples. Many anthropologists carried out investigations earlier where digital technologies did not exist as they do today. Many young indigenous people are interested in knowing and listening to the recorded interviews that were carried out by anthropologists with their families and are aware of the existence of these collected audiovisual material, that is, many want the return of what was collected in the past. It is known that some anthropologists have promoted the return of their research back to the indigenous people from which they were collected. This is a situation that looks like it will continue to take effect. This workshop aims to discuss all the issues that arise in the current situation with the restitution of ethnographic archives and the ways to put the collected files online so that they could be used by the indigenous people themselves according to their interests. These actions can also be seen within the framework of the production of a more collaborative anthropology and above all within the colonial perspective. Our hope in this workshop is to be able to share diverse experiences of restitution of ethnographic archives and their methodological and ethical issues for indigenous communities that in time not far away were the targets of investigations. We are also welcoming comparative papers from different regions of the world. We would appreciate papers which would integrate archival works on indigenous populations, and consider restitutional issues as well, where and when indigenous populations have faced processes of patrimonialisation. Ethical issues would ensue from such considerations.Regístrate
84Multiple forms of violence in the contexts of extractivism and dispossession: anthropological perspectives on women’s resistance.75Natalia De Marinisnataliademarinis@ciesas.edu.mxSusanne Hofmann, Verónica Alejandra Velázquez GuerreroIn this panel, we seek to generate a dialogue from various anthropological and situated experiences about multiple forms of violence and women’s resistance in territories that are impacted by various expressions of violence, extractivism and dispossession. In recent years, the expansion of extractivist enclaves in the world, driven by transnational capital and foreign investment, generated new forms of capital accumulation through the plunder of natural resources, territories and bodies. The natural resource extraction models in regions with great natural diversity and with impoverished economies and neoliberalized and dependent states became blended with other forms of profit generation through illegal economies, causing multiple effects on vulnerable territories and bodies, such as those of poor, racialized women, and indigenous women, among others. The panel is designed to generate a dialogue regarding the following concerns: In what way is the context of extractivism, dispossession and multiple forms of violence against the territories affecting women in a differentiated way? How much is this violence on their bodies interrelated with the degrees of impact? How are women building alternatives? How do these scenarios impose new challenges for anthropology to think about engaged / activist / co-laborative / shared action research? What ethical-political dilemmas arise in our research with and about women in these contexts?With this panel, we seek to generate a dialogue about multiple forms of violence and women’s resistance in territories that are impacted by various expressions of violence, extractivism and dispossession. We want to focus on analytical frameworks that allow us to understand not only the multiple expressions of violence, but also its specific effects that are necessarily heterogeneous, plural and are embedded in larger systems of oppression. Intersectionality, a perspective that emerged from Afro-American academia and activism (Combahee River Collective 1977; Crenshaw, 1991), came to illuminate concerns about how to understand violence against women, not only because of their gender condition, but also from other categories such as race, ethnicity, class, among others, which, interrelated, configure specific vulnerabilities and oppressions. However, the mere fact of adding categories is often insufficient when it comes to understanding these bodies in territories affected by the current extractive economies and the continuum of colonial violence that deepens, aggravates and underlies them (Cumes, 2014; Viveros, 2016). With this panel, we seek to expand the ways in which women conceive, experience, suffer and resist dispossession, which is not only the result of a pattern of large-scale extractive development, but also of illegal violence and militarization that control territories by dispossessing large populations of the possibility of transit and use. We are interested in understanding specifically how women are facing these forms of violence, understanding that different forms of violence ? from the most intimate and everyday to the most visible form ? are mutually articulated and constitute one another. These perspectives, on multiple scales, also broaden the frames of intersectionality, to incorporate territorial dimensions, the continuum of violence over certain territories, and the relationship of violence with the construction of racialized geographies. Finally, as various feminists have suggested, the political power of the frameworks that intersect violence lies not only in seeing the multiple forms of violence against women's bodies, but also in understanding that it is from this structural framework of violence in which women are located, that they are building resistances and deploying their knowledge for the collective care and reproduction of life. In this panel, we would like to share reflections on how this resistance is being created and built, and in what way women, while they are gaining greater and greater agency, are also facing increased threats. We believe that an anthropological and ethnographic approach is essential to understand the complexity of these phenomena in a situated way. At the same time, we situate this perspective as a tool to broaden the views on gender violence, taking into account the deployment of multiple forms of violence and degrees of impact women are suffering in racialized territories. In addition, we would like to be forceful in the ethical-political dimensions, with which we face these close accompaniments in territories impacted by violence. We would like to position and reflect on ethnography, not only as a method of analysis, but also of co-labor and shared action.Regístrate
85Reimagining Heritage to Defend the Yucatan Peninsula in the Capitalocene76Rodrigo Llanesrodrigo.llanes@cephcis.unam.mxGabriela Torres-MazueraThis panel aims to describe and analyze the emerging conceptions and practices of heritage in the Yucatan Peninsula in the context of multiplying development projects.The Yucatan Peninsula is often considered a region with a rich cultural and historical heritage, mainly because of the Mayan archaeological sites and colonial architecture spread throughout the territory. However, new types of heritage has become recently visible in the face of sweeping deforestation, harsh biodiversity lost and soaring privatization of communal lands, triggered by urban, industrial, agro-industrial and tourist developments. Nowadays several actors contribute to redefined elements such as the montes (forest), bees, cenotes (sinkholes), Mayan productive practices and knowledge like the milpa, in terms of heritage. This panel aims to describe and analyze the emerging conceptions and practices of heritage in the Yucatan Peninsula in the context of multiplying development projects. Some of the questions to discuss are: ¿What is being defined as “heritage” in the Yucatan peninsula in the context of Capitalocene? ¿Who are the main actors that (re) define assets in terms of heritage, and get involved in their care and defense? ¿Which are the defense strategies and their effects (material, symbolic, direct or indirect) on community organization, public opinion, legal practice and mobilization? And in more general terms, ¿What is the relationship between commons and heritage in contemporary rural and desagrarized Mexico?Regístrate
86“Heritage as a Political Tool: Affirming or Rejecting Marginalization” [Commission on Marginalization and Global Apartheid and Commission on Anthropology of Tourism]77Marie Wallacelmwalla1@asu.eduNatalie BlochDiscussant: Dr. Subhadra Channa This panel is directed towards raising and debating the issue of the use of heritage as a way to assert power or to contest it. What we recognize as heritage in the present day often consists of the symbolic presence of powerful entities of the past; tombs, palaces, temples and or structures that are memorials to past holders of power. It is significant that the heritages of marginalized groups, such as the indigenous populations, ethnic and religious minorities are rarely recognized and acknowledged, let alone put on the tourist maps. Even wild life sanctuaries and conserved ecologies rarely acknowledge the communities that may have been living in those areas for centuries. However, the identity of heritage structures and their symbolism are not stable and remain historically contested and are open to transformation and challenge. They may be preserved or destroyed as the social and political climates change. Many religious structures have changed identities with shifting power regimes and marginalized groups too have made their presence felt as during the Black Lives Matter movement. An earlier disreputable space like the Stone Wall café has at present assumed iconic status, representing the LGBTQ community. To build up and identify their own heritage is an important dimension of the identity assertion of the marginalized. The proposed panel encourages debates around these issues, inviting both empirical case studies and theoretical discussions.The objective of the panel is to challenge the power relations inscribed in the heritage protection discourse. We aim to discuss the possibilities to widen this discourse by including the subaltern voices of communities traditionally marginalized within the dominant power structures. The anthropologists’ view on heritage often contrast with the heritage regimes promoted by both the States and international organizations (such as UNESCO). Such “hegemonic authorized heritage discourse”, as Laurajane Smith accurately notices in her book Uses of Heritage, is “reliant on the power/knowledge claims of technical and aesthetic experts, and institutionalized in the state cultural agencies” (2006: 11). We want to discuss uses of heritage both as a way to assert power and to contest it, by inviting ethnographic studies of marginalized groups – be them indigenous or migrant groups, religious, ethnic, or sexual minorities, labor or peasant classes, and others – who struggle for the right to have their heritage recognized. Especially that the right to heritage is not only about allowing non-dominant vision of heritage, but also about the right to benefit from it, since heritage is a highly tourismified field and generates profits which rarely go to those who inhabit heritage sites or are heirs to them. Thus, the question about heritage assertion is related not only to the attempts of widening its notion through, for instance, The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, but also to The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The latter, in its article 15, defines the right to the “cultural life,” understood anthropologically as a “way of living”, inducing all economic, social and political benefits that stem from one's way of life. Moreover, it states that its protection is “an ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for human dignity”. Promoting such a vision of heritage and unveiling the power structures inscribed in a dominant heritage protection discourse is what anthropology should be deeply engaged.Regístrate
87Cultural Policies of Memory78Rocío Ruizrruizlagier@gmail.comAngela Giglia, Práxedes MuñozIn this panel we are interested in debating and dialoguing with colleagues who, from diverse specialties and diverse contexts, analyze memory as a subject matter, and its relationships with cultural policies within urban environments, including its implementation, design and management. The aim is to broaden the discussion on memory as a collective heritage and to expand and strengthen research networks on cultural policies of memory in cities, at an international level.Social memory has played a key role in the construction of collective imaginaries and symbols; hence, we are interested in debating the existence of cultural policies of memory, where memory is the axis of such policies, either implicitly or explicitly. In this panel, we are interested in analyzing various public policies and programs that we have called "cultural policies of memory". We are interested in reflecting upon the scope of state intervention in certain cultural policies in which memory has been the guiding axis or the fundamental element of such interventions. In this way, we will analyze the discourses and redefinitions about the past that have been carried out by different public authorities through different mechanisms, such as the creation or renovation of certain urban spaces, the elaboration of aesthetic experiences that promote a specific type of memory consumption (cinema, exhibitions, art installations, memorials, thematic parks, etc.) or policies aimed at the recognition of certain episodes, groups or communities. We believe that this field has been insufficiently explored and that it deserves a comparative reflection across different cities. In Latin America, after the dictatorships and armed conflicts during the second half of the 20th Century, the analysis of memory gained relevance within social sciences, focusing mainly on reparation processes, as well as the search for truth and justice for the victims. Memory policies (such as truth commissions and trials for perpetrators of crimes) designed by civil society and various state agents have been implemented in several countries and have been widely studied. However, the relationship between public policies and social memory is not limited to this field, defined by collective trauma. It also concerns, in an increasingly developed way, less traumatic areas; in some cases strongly structuring everyday life and collective identities. We refer, for example, to the recovery, redefinition and reconstruction of the identities of various social actors, in urban contexts under commodification processes and the so called "creative destruction". Thus, in this panel we discuss urban cultural policies in which memory plays a relevant role as tangible and intangible heritage of diverse social groups and local communities, but it may also represents an element in dispute among actors provided with unequal power –both symbolic and social– and changing entailments with institutional powers (Jelin 2017). While cultural policies usually refer to the management of a common past that is developed at different scales, the purpose of this panel is to analyze the implementation of certain policies at a local scale, placing memory not only as the axis of patrimonialization (e.g., in the urban renovation of historic centers), but as an element that allows articulating and putting into dialogue multicultural components in different urban contexts.Regístrate
88Following the current: Oceanic Diasporic Heritages across the oceans79Pedro Pombopedromanuelpombo@gmail.comRose BoswellDiaspora and migration have shaped the world cultures for millennia. Forced or voluntary, by land or by sea, the circulation of people, things and cultures has drawn a diversity of cultural landscapes build on movement and displacement. Cultural worlds as the Indian Ocean, the Caribbean Sea or the Pacific transoceanic archipelagos have been drawn by lived experiences of flow of myriads of people and commodities, languages, religions, materialities and affective worlds. These cultural landscapes are, then, translocal in its essence, perceived beyond political borders and continental limits, incorporating diasporic heritages that are lived, memorialized, enacted in multiple modes. The recognition of these diasporic heritages is essential to acknowledge cultural diversities that do not conform to narrow political and cultural projects based on political borders or cultural uniformity. The Mediterranean as well as the Indian Ocean have been fundamental locations to understand heritages that are rooted, and immersed, in circulations. These cultural regions are, in fact, possible because of permanent movement. Recently, transoceanic currents have been proposed as metaphoric conceptual frames to study the material, mnemonic and sensorial worlds that links coastal and insular landscapes across continents and oceans. Asian origin heritages in the India Ocean, Pacific and Caribbean islands dialogue with African belongings in Southern America countries, Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asian port cities. The possibility of exploring diasporic heritages, thus, opens important possibilities of recognizing cultural heritages belonging to minorities that have not been taken as relevant. At the same time, artists have been proposing new modes of thinking, acknowledging cultural landscapes that bring history in order to build resilient futures. This panel departs, then, from islands and coasts to think how maritime diasporic heritages can direct us to novel modes of understanding culture and new methodological approaches to material and intangible heritages immersed in oceanic movement. Following tidalDiaspora and migration have shaped the world cultures for millennia. Forced or voluntary, by land or by sea, the circulation of people, things and cultures has drawn a diversity of cultural landscapes build on movement and displacement. Cultural worlds as the Indian Ocean, the Caribbean Sea or the Pacific transoceanic archipelagos have been drawn by lived experiences of flow of myriads of people and commodities, languages, religions, materialities and affective worlds. These cultural landscapes are, then, translocal in its essence, perceived beyond political borders and continental limits, incorporating diasporic heritages that are lived, memorialized, enacted in multiple modes. The recognition of these diasporic heritages is essential to acknowledge cultural diversities that do not conform to narrow political and cultural projects based on political borders or cultural uniformity. The Mediterranean as well as the Indian Ocean have been fundamental locations to understand heritages that are rooted, and immersed, in circulations. These cultural regions are, in fact, possible because of permanent movement. Recently, transoceanic currents have been proposed as metaphoric conceptual frames to study the material, mnemonic and sensorial worlds that links coastal and insular landscapes across continents and oceans. Asian origin heritages in the India Ocean, Pacific and Caribbean islands dialogue with African belongings in Southern America countries, Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asian port cities. The possibility of exploring diasporic heritages, thus, opens important possibilities of recognizing cultural heritages belonging to minorities that have not been taken as relevant. At the same time, artists have been proposing new modes of thinking, acknowledging cultural landscapes that bring history in order to build resilient futures. This panel departs, then, from islands and coasts to think how maritime diasporic heritages can direct us to novel modes of understanding culture and new methodological approaches to material and intangible heritages immersed in oceanic movement. Following tidal movements, weather systems as the monsoon or transoceanic currents, this panel aims at triggering new conceptual, textual and visual languages that allow us to study and respect the extraordinary heritages that gained life across the oceans.Regístrate
89Christian missions and indigenous patrimony: contradictions and comparison80Francesca Declichfrancesca.declich@uniurb.itMelvina Afra Mendes de AraujoMissionary societies acted and acts according to specific policies elaborated within the religious orders, missionary societies or even the states to which those missions are related. Despite the lines and directions designed from the top, the missionaries’ activities interact with the different livelihoods they encounter resulting in original intercultural processes albeit often characterized by similarities. Comparative and cross-cultural anthropological studies of the cultural relations, changes and cultural stress produced by missionary societies and missions’ activities is interesting to study. Among the questions addressed by the panelists will be: how the same missionary’s policy applied by a Christian missionary society/order was received and acted in Latin-American indigenous cultures as compared with African indigenous ones? Is there a possible interaction on how the activities missionaries brought about in different continents? How philosophies used by specific missionary’s societies or orders impacted differently or seemingly in different countries and cultures? Comparative anthropological studies of how religious institutions and agents have introduced themselves into indigenous cultures modifying profoundly and interacting strongly with world visions and cosmologies they encountered may show how the interaction produced and pushed towards new ways or interaction of the people involved in the Anthropocene. Often individual anthropologists are area specialists and have not carried out fieldwork in several continents; yet, the comparison on who these religious agents produced differences and new social stratification can be an important to explore. In the same way that missionaries’ actions could act in indigenous subjectivity, they could be touched themselves by indigenous beliefs or comprehension about the self and the soul.Missionary societies acted and acts according to specific policies elaborated within the religious orders, missionary societies or even the states to which those missions are related. Despite the lines and directions designed from the top, the missionaries’ activities interact with the different livelihoods they encounter resulting in original intercultural processes albeit often characterized by similarities. Comparative and cross-cultural anthropological studies of the cultural relations, changes and cultural stress produced by missionary societies and missions’ activities is interesting to study. Among the questions addressed by the panelists will be: how the same missionary’s policy applied by a Christian missionary society/order was received and acted in Latin-American indigenous cultures as compared with African indigenous ones? Is there a possible interaction on how the activities missionaries brought about in different continents? How philosophies used by specific missionary’s societies or orders impacted differently or seemingly in different countries and cultures? Comparative anthropological studies of how religious institutions and agents have introduced themselves into indigenous cultures modifying profoundly and interacting strongly with world visions and cosmologies they encountered may show how the interaction produced and pushed towards new ways or interaction of the people involved in the Anthropocene. Often individual anthropologists are area specialists and have not carried out fieldwork in several continents; yet, the comparison on who these religious agents produced differences and new social stratification can be an important to explore. In the same way that missionaries’ actions could act in indigenous subjectivity, they could be touched themselves by indigenous beliefs or comprehension about the self and the soul. Although missionaries’ societies normally desire change indigenous people into their own religion or beliefs, sometimes some missionaries are touched by which they consider “indigenous spirituality” and tried to introduce some indigenous elements in their own doctrine. Other times they tried to create a new theology, like, for example, “teologia Índia” or the “theology of inculturation”, that consider indigenous practices and rites differently from the traditional Christians doctrines. There is also some contexts within the missionaries’ propositions find similarities with something desired by people. In these cases, normally people want to acquire some “civilized” behaviours, ways of dressing, etc. because they thought they could have better jobs and get some opportunities to have some socials ameliorations. In these kind of contexts, sometimes there are disputes between different missionaries’ denominations about the “real sense” of religion and the real way of religious life. Because of these fights, missionaries and indigenous people acted to define how to change some mores to transform them according their definitions. In others contexts where there are disputes between indigenous people and colonizers or foreign people, missionaries could to support the perspectives of one or another side and their choice can define how they will be considered in the future by indigenous and outsiders. Panelists may also deal with material gathered in archives thus taking an ethnohistorical approach that can offer depth to the analysis and elaborations.Regístrate
90Heritage Imaginaries: Situated knowledge, local-to-global connections, and frictions [Intangible Cultural Heritage; Museums and Cultural Heritage; Anthropology of Tourism]81Noel B Salazarnoel.salazar@kuleuven.beAna Elisa AstudilloThis panel invites ethnographic as well as conceptual and methodological contributions that disentangle ‘heritage imaginaries’. We conceive heritage imaginaries as socially shared representational assemblages that are based on situated knowledge and can act as sources of creativity for social change. For this reason, it is essential to critically analyze the role of anthropology and heritage studies in the dissemination of heritage discourses and the consolidation of heritage imaginaries in places controlled by heritage conservation policies as a resource for economic development. Another topic that needs to be discussed is the uses and narratives of the past (also in tourism) as well as projections of the future as sources of heritage imaginaries. How does the imagineering of heritage (be it material or intangible, cultural or natural) play a pivotal role in privileging some imaginaries over others and thus enduring identity representations? Engaging with the main theme of the congress, it is crucial to discuss local-to-global interconnections in terms of information exchanges about heritage that are shaped by cultural hybridizations and frictions at different scales. Therefore, it is important to compare heritage imaginaries in documented everyday experiences but also conceptual and methodological frames. Likewise, it is vital to discuss the contributions of heritage imaginaries to debates that have emerged during economic crises and socio-environmental conflicts in postcolonial contexts and, on a global scale, the crisis generated by the coronavirus pandemic. It is high time to pursue alternative methodologies to properly study and disentangle the complexity and diversity of heritage imaginaries, exploring their potential as sources of contestation, driving social claims and creativity to face current problems. Therefore, this panel calls for case studies from across the globe.Heritage imaginaries are socially shared representational assemblages of situated knowledge. Emerging from interactions within and between networks, they are complex and potentially conflictive, confronting hegemonic discourses and practices of heritage with diverse and polemic alternatives. It is important to critically analyze the role of anthropology and heritage practitioners in the dissemination and consolidation of heritage imaginaries. This panel therefore invites scholars to reflect on how the imagineering of heritage (be it material or intangible, cultural or natural) plays a pivotal role in privileging some imaginaries over others and thus enduring identity ideologies? This panel calls to overcome institutionalized notions of (what is assumed as) heritage by shifting the locus of expression and production of heritage imaginaries from an emic perspective grounded in a sense of belonging to an imagined community creating novel ways of ancestrality and subalterities. Engaging with the main theme of the congress, we want to discuss local-to-global interconnections in terms of heritage exchanges and practices that are shaped by cultural hybridizations and frictions at different scales. Likewise, we want to scrutinize the role of heritage imaginaries within ongoing economic crises and socio-environmental conflicts in postcolonial contexts and, on a global scale, the predicament generated by the coronavirus pandemic. Finally, the panel pays attention to appropriate methodologies to study and disentangle the complexity and diversity of heritage imaginaries, exploring their potential as sources of contestation, driving social claims and creativity to face societal challenges. In sum, this panel invites ethnographic and conceptual contributions that address how territorialities and ontologies shape heritage imaginaries, paying particular attention to native peoples' ways of imagining and reinventing heritage. For example, think of the Andes and Mesoamerica, where native people's heritage is enmeshed in the construction of a historical subject and an ethnic-community in tension with official colonial historyRegístrate
91Anthropologies, tourism and (im)mobilities in troubled times [Commission on the Anthropology of Tourism]82claudio milanoclaudiomilanouab@gmail.comFilipa Fernandes, Edgar BernardoTourism has registered unprecedented growth since the beginning of the new millennium and has been welcomed in tourist destinations as a source of economic development. However, anthropologists historically have dedicated a careful analysis on the embedded inequalities provoked by the tourism encounters and misencounters in host communities. Recently, with the COVID-19 crisis, the world has moved from hypermobility and overtourism to detention and undertourism. Within this global scenario it has been witnessed a material reappropriation and symbolic resignification of historically touristified spaces. In this context, the disputes of tourist-oriented spaces have represented a multifaceted and complex scenario between international interests and local scale effects. To cope with the crisis, local authorities, national tourism offices and destination marketing organizations (DMOs) have focused on reactivating the value chain of the tourism sector. In this regard, most of the public aid has been of a fiscal nature such as reductions, tax exemptions and legal moratoriums. This panel aims to explore the effects of the mobility crisis induced by COVID-19 in urban and rural tourism settings based on epistemological, methodological and discursive approaches that have occurred in the last decade. Furthermore, the panel wish to open a debate on how anthropological contributions might foster a better understanding on the social perspective of COVID-19 induced crises in tourist destinations. Both the excess of tourism and its absence offer new scenarios to the understanding of tourism (im)mobilities in troubled times in terms of genealogies, agencies, responses, discourses and representations. Finally, the panel invites contributions which might reveal on the role of digital technology and discusses its implications for material culture understanding. In this framework, the anthropologies of tourism offer a space for dialogue in order to rethink the political and research agenda on the new challenges and scenarios on tourism (im)mobilities in complex societies.Tourism has registered unprecedented growth since the beginning of the new millennium and has been welcomed in tourist destinations as a source of economic development. However, anthropologists historically have dedicated a careful analysis on the embedded inequalities provoked by the tourism encounters and misencounters in host communities. Recently, with the COVID-19 crisis, the world has moved from hypermobility and overtourism to detention and undertourism. Within this global scenario it has been witnessed a material reappropriation and symbolic resignification of historically touristified spaces. In this context, the disputes of tourist-oriented spaces have represented a multifaceted and complex scenario between international interests and local scale effects. To cope with the crisis, local authorities, national tourism offices and destination marketing organizations (DMOs) have focused on reactivating the value chain of the tourism sector. In this regard, most of the public aid has been of a fiscal nature such as reductions, tax exemptions and legal moratoriums. This panel aims to explore the effects of the mobility crisis induced by COVID-19 in urban and rural tourism contexts based on epistemological, methodological and discursive approaches that have occurred in the last decade. Furthermore, the panel wish to open a debate on how anthropological contributions might foster a better understanding on the social perspective of COVID-19 induced tourism crises and on the controversial relationship between mobility rights and immobility obligations in tourist destinations. Both the excess of tourism and its absence offer new scenarios to the understanding of tourism (im)mobilities in troubled times in terms of genealogies, agencies, responses, discourses and representations. Finally, the panel invites contributions which might reveal on the role of digital technology and discusses its implications for material culture understanding. In this framework, the anthropologies of tourism offer a space for dialogue in order to rethink the political and research agenda on the new challenges and scenarios on tourism (im)mobilities in complex societies. The underlying intention of this panel will be to debate and discuss cutting-edge research on the anthropologies of tourism and mobilities. The panel wish to promote pressing perspectives on anthropological contributions on mobilities for leisure purpose in troubled times. In this context, understanding the interrelationships between mobilities and immobilities will help the understanding of the rapid upfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic effects on the contemporary challenges of the anthropological insights on motion and fixity. Drawn on the inspirational special number foreword “Anthropologies of Tourism: What's in a Name?” (2017) published by Noel B. Salazar on the American the panel encourage to move beyond the hegemonic Anglo-Saxon approaches and invite contributions from broader perspectives which can shed light on the plurality of the anthropological tools to analyse the current epistemological challenges on the analysis of (im)mobilities.Regístrate
93Enterprise Anthropology: Managing heritages and global issues in business [Comission on Enterprise Anthropology]83Tobias Koellnertobias.koellner@uni-wh.deMaria Yotova, Keiko YamakiOver the last decades, a considerable amount of solid research on business companies and entrepreneurship has been produced in anthropology. This panel addresses the new challenges in this field focusing on two major issues: (1) business activities in different cultural contexts and (2) building a more integrated theoretical basis for comparison. The panel will also address such issues as management philosophy, business ethics and corporate networks in the context of the global society, and the ways companies manage heritages and create economic, social, and environmental value for communities and customers in different cultural contexts.Over the last decades, a considerable amount of solid research on business companies and entrepreneurship was produced in anthropology. In so doing, new insights were added to classical understandings on the topic, which were so prominently addressed by Max Weber and Joseph Schumpeter. In the meanwhile, enterprise anthropology developed a strong heritage and its own legacies. Nevertheless, there also exist some challenges for the future. With few important exceptions, these studies are idiosyncratic and linked to each other only tenuously. Moreover, such insights are even less integrated as a coherent approach on a truly global scale. Therefore, we want to discuss how the legacies of enterprise anthropology enable us to address the following two major questions: (1) how do business activities and entrepreneurship vary in different cultural contexts, and (2) how are we able to develop a theoretically more integrated basis, which would lead to more consistent and comparable results? We invite papers that pay attention but are not limited to discussing such theoretical approaches. Themes may also include such issues as management philosophy, business ethics and corporate networks in the context of the global society, and the ways companies manage heritages and create economic, social, and environmental value for communities and customers in different cultural contexts.Regístrate
94Indigenous Knowledge and Sustainable Development [Commission on Indigenous Knowledge and Sustainable Development, IUAES]84Viacheslav Valentinovich Rudnevroudnev@mail.ruDorothy K. BillingsThis panel will discuss the role of Heritage (in particularly, elements of Folk cultures) in Modern society. Special attention of anthropologists to examples of keeping (and claiming) a Folk heritage in a modern post- industrial society is a promising way for understanding a value of Folk culture (Indigenous Knowledge) as a cultural event achieved successfully with difficulty. A study of the role of factors that provide prerequisites for the transformation of traditional culture (under the influence of new conditions) and, conversely, determine the preservation of elements of the culture of the past in the conditions of innovative changes is an urgent problem for anthropologists today in different regions of the world. The ambiguity and complexity that distinguish this process determine the expediency of turning to the comparative ethnological material presented in the culture of different peoples of the world. Modern cultural study of Indigenous wisdom in Life-support activity and Nature using (on the local level) provides a better understanding of Heritage and open a look on a special potential it for a future, in particularly on the way of searching Sustainable models of life. An anthropological science has original data about technologies, procedures and cultural traditions and tools of using were effective in pre-industrial epoch and are interesting now (that required the sparing of nature). The appeal to the models of everyday life (life-supporting activities, diet and other features of the daily lifestyle) seems to be a promising direction today, which opens up the opportunity to consider the problem of Folk Heritage in a comprehensive way, with the use of comparative material. We intend to focus on the analysis of examples of Heritage preservation in the new epoch. This can objectively contribute to the clarification of ideas about the factors that affect the consolidation and preservation of traditions.Modern World has a lot of problems in choosing a way for searching an optimal models for decision in Mankind existence. Problems in Nature-Society relationships have a special meaning for today Mankind. Appeal to Folk experience in Wild alive nature is one of a way in searching a decision. This topic is actual for modern Anthropology science. Folk/indigenous technologies in Life-support activity, Folk/indigenous social structures, ethics and world-views, and the strengths of Folk/indigenous societies and cultures are themes central for the cross-cultural interdisciplinary research presented here as part of the work of the Commission on Indigenous Knowledge and Sustainable Development. We have seen clearly that the elaborate technologies of the industrialized world cannot be maintained without the strong support of a well-organized, cooperative and reliable setting in society. We have seen that elaborate technologies that working well in some situations are devastating to others. Cross-cultural, interdisciplinary approach to the investigation of Folk/indigenous technologies in using Nature and activity supporting life allows for a better comprehension of Folk culture and the mode ofRegístrate
95Kinship as Human Heritage [Commission on Theoretical Anthropology]85Dwight Readdread@ss.ucla.eduVladimir Popov, Fadwa El GuindiKinship is the most lasting, pervasive, and universal aspect of human heritage that humans engendered as their cognitive capacity developed qualitatively out of drive-based natural foundations and enhanced propagation, survival, and physical security through the building of social means for humans to organize themselves conceptually and through practices as relatives and non-relatives in societies grounded in cultural meanings. Dramatic global events, such as the current Covid Pandemic that has touched all people, revealed rather than obscured, the significance of this kind of relations in human societies. This panel seeks to cover any or all aspects that characterize and define kinship as a universal social category including systematic terminology, marital possibilities and prohibitions, forms of marital links and their contexts, cultural pathways for recognizing persons as relatives, principles for succession, corporate identity, and group formation based on kinship ranging from monarchy to tribe and to other forms. The goal is to engage in scholarly debate, particularly through studies grounded in new ethnographic data and a reconsideration of existing theory,Kinship is the most lasting, pervasive, and universal aspect of human heritage that humans engendered as their cognitive capacity developed qualitatively out of drive-based natural foundations and enhanced propagation, survival, and physical security through the building of social means for humans to organize themselves conceptually and through practices as relatives and non-relatives in societies grounded in cultural meanings. Dramatic global events, such as the current Covid Pandemic that has touched all people, revealed rather than obscured, the significance of this kind of relations in human societies. This panel seeks to cover any or all aspects that characterize and define kinship as a universal social category including systematic terminology, marital possibilities and prohibitions, forms of marital links and their contexts, cultural pathways for recognizing persons as relatives, principles for succession, corporate identity, and group formation based on kinship ranging from monarchy to tribe and to other forms. The goal is to engage in scholarly debate, particularly through studies grounded in new ethnographic data and a reconsideration of existing theory,Regístrate
96Afterlives of Education and the Revision of Aspirations [IUAES Commission on Anthropology and Education]86John Loewenthaljl.loewenthal@gmail.comMichelle Zhang, Jessica GarberEducation is symbolically framed worldwide as the source of people’s hopes for the future. However, educational systems are becoming increasingly competitive and their outcomes increasingly elusive. This panel investigates afterlives of education and the associated revision of aspirations. We are interested in all levels of the schooling experience at all ages and stages of life. We are particularly interested in the ways that lives, and even time itself, are shaped through interacting with education as well as what happens when assumed timelines are disrupted. Through this lens, we can examine how lives are imbued with different forms of (im)mobility as a result of education, as people move through time, space, institutions, and socio-economic class. Much of the discursive narrative for educational aspiration revolves around progression, moving “forward” through distinctive life and career stages. However, we do not presume that lives move in a unilineal fashion, and instead want to leave open possibilities for diverse conceptualizations of life trajectories. For example, scholars from queer studies have helped to disrupt (hetero)normative assumptions of the life course, leaving open notions of time as fluid, circular, or at a stand-still. Further to education’s promise failing to materialize, there may be other adverse or inadvertent consequences to educational participation from pigeonholing through specialization to the constraints of debt. What are people’s deliberations, we ask, in dealing with such afterlives of education? Experiences of stasis or competition may lead to further education and (re-)training as the life course becomes increasingly credentialized. This panel hence explores the ongoing temporalities of aspirations towards education, including people’s agentive and emotional responses from alternative plans and reveries to forms of rationalization or regret. This will be a comparative and collaborative discussion of research across cultural and socio-economic contexts.“What’s next”? - This is a common question we’ve asked and been asked in both our personal and professional lives. It implies an expectation of movement throughout one’s life course; certainly, there must be something different, which education prepares people for, that’s next. Our proposed panel will consider experiences of the future-oriented promise of education and its afterlives experienced by people around the world. Our panel objective is to provide space for a comparative and collaborative discussion of research across cultural and socio-economic contexts. We are particularly interested in how lives, and even time itself, are experienced and bent through interacting with education and what happens when that timeline is disrupted. Through this lens, we can examine how lives are imbued with different forms of (im)mobility as people attempt to use education to forge better futures for themselves, with varying consequences in social, occupational, and financial status. Directly relating to the conference theme, we are interested in how human lives, like societies, are formed out of combinations of heritage and possibility. Globally, education is symbolically framed as the source of such possibility where background need not determine a person’s destiny. We are interested in all levels of the educational experience from hopes of pre-primary, primary, and secondary school students and their parents, to participants of higher education at all levels, to participants in technical or vocational training at all stages of life. Much of the discursive narrative for educational aspiration revolves around progression, moving “forward” through distinctive life and career stages. But we do not presume that lives move in a unilineal fashion, and instead leave open possibilities for how people conceptualize lives as fluid, circular, or at a stand-still. Taking inspiration from queer theorists like José Esteban Muñoz and C. Riley Snorton, we consider how one’s past becomes imbricated in present hopes and psychological states and creates shifts in imaginations of the future. What aspirations are available to people who have paused their educational pursuits? How are people of any age navigating precarious employment prospects? And what other kinds of aspirations towards intimacy, family, and happiness are made possible or revised through the presence or absence of credentials? The main contribution of this panel is to consider how ethnographies can capture how people are willfully or inadvertently changing themselves in the ongoing processes of education and buying into education as a promise for the future. We propose a diachronic approach to studies of education--in contrast to a synchronic framing of education’s socio-cultural systems captured in stasis--in order to consider how people revise their aspirations in education’s afterlives. We are in dialogue with texts like Anthropological Perspectives on Student Futures (Stambach and Hall 2017), which examines the myriad ways young people around the world experience, navigate, plan for, and suffer from formal education systems. Since the contours of what is dream-able are changing, we are interested in people’s agentive responses, and especially how education impacts the life course, as people attempt to survive and thrive in our increasingly precarious worldRegístrate
97Media Anthropology: (digital) Communication Practices and Processes87Florencia García-Rappfgarciarapp@gmail.comMarie Hermanova, Haripriya NarasimhanThe term “media” occupies such a crucial space in our lives that human interactions are increasingly analysed from a “mediated” perspective. Media forms have been subjected to adulation and censorship simultaneously and are often spoken in terms of the ‘power’ they have to shape ideas and practices. Anthropological thinking and methods have a vital role to play here, in highlighting the myriad ways in which contemporary worldviews are shaped by media and vice versa. The panel invites scholars from both media anthropology and media/communication studies perspectives to a discussion about theoretical and methodological exchanges between the fields in the broadest sense. Possible contributions can include the following topics: • theoretical and methodological discussions of contemporary socio-cultural phenomena that benefit from anthropological approach on an epistemological and/or methodological level, analysis of the value of ethnographic intent for media/communication studies. • ethnography as a method for the study of digital communication and platforms; strategies, ethical and methodological challenges, methodologically oriented discussion about ethnography as practice in media/communication studies. • media ethnographies, including digital media - empirical explorations of living, experiencing, and performing the self online and in the media, uses and reinventions of (digital) media platforms, identity work and configurations of cultural subjectivities (audiences, publics, users and fans). • digital cultural socialities and online lives from emic perspective - practices, hierarchies, norms, discourses of digital platforms and communities.The term “media” occupies such a crucial space in our lives that human interactions are increasingly analysed from a “mediated” perspective. Media forms have been subjected to adulation and censorship simultaneously and are often spoken in terms of the ‘power’ they have to shape ideas and practices. Anthropological thinking and methods have a vital role to play here, in highlighting the myriad ways in which contemporary worldviews are shaped by media and vice versa. The panel invites scholars from both media anthropology and media/communication studies perspectives to a discussion about theoretical and methodological exchanges between the fields in the broadest sense. Possible contributions can include the following topics: • theoretical and methodological discussions of contemporary socio-cultural phenomena that benefit from anthropological approach on an epistemological and/or methodological level, analysis of the value of ethnographic intent for media/communication studies. • ethnography as a method for the study of digital communication and platforms; strategies, ethical and methodological challenges, methodologically oriented discussion about ethnography as practice in media/communication studies. • media ethnographies, including digital media - empirical explorations of living, experiencing, and performing the self online and in the media, uses and reinventions of (digital) media platforms, identity work and configurations of cultural subjectivities (audiences, publics, users and fans). • digital cultural socialities and online lives from emic perspective - practices, hierarchies, norms, discourses of digital platforms and communities.Regístrate
98Organising practices and force fields in the œuvre of Monique Nuijten88José Luis Escalona Victoriajoseluisescalona@prodigy.net.mxGemma Van Der HaarPolitics, development, statehood, corruption and institutions –these are the topics that Monique Nuijten (Netherlands, 1961-2021) pursued as a well-known specialist in political anthropology and sociology in Latin America and Europe. In her fieldwork among different populations in Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, and Spain, she was interested in what she insightfully called organising practices and force fields. This outstanding methodological and conceptual perspective transformed social research by offering us alternative ways to understand politics and state formation at the grassroots level. Her publications inspired many students and colleagues working around the globe. This academic panel will follow her analytical approach by means of a reconsideration of her studies of land disputes in Mexico and Peru, the spatial regime in Brazilian favelas, the political activism of the PAH (Platform of Mortgage Victims) in Spain, the utopian aspirations among practitioners of break-dance in Ecuador, and informality and coproduction of urban space around the globe. By gathering junior and senior scholars pursuing anthropological explorations on grassroots politics in our contemporary societies, the panel will contribute to the ongoing evaluation of Nuijten´s work. In this sense, it furthers conversations sparked by the recent publication Engaged Encounter. Thinking about Forces, Fields and Friendships with Monique Nuijten by the Department of Sociology of Development and Change at the University of Wageningen, where she worked nearly her entire academic career. The five participants in this session, hailing from Europe and the Americas, will discuss multiple methodological and theoretical trajectories that underscore the relevance of Nuijten´s thought to their own research in progress.The well-known contemporary social scientist Monique Nuijten (Netherlands, 1961-2021) left us an enduring legacy in several fields of anthropological and sociological research. Politics, development, statehood, corruption, law, institutions, organization, violence and power –these are some of the topics she pursued in her research in Latin America and Europe. She performed meticulous and innovative fieldwork among very diverse populations in Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, and Spain. From her first experiences in Mexico in the 1990s, she was interested in what she insightfully called organising practices and force fields. She formulated her perspective as a critique of the dominant theoretical schema that focused on the State as a centralized and all-mighty institutionalized force. Likewise, she critiqued the structural idea of “broker”, embedded in debates on regional power, mediators and political connections. Her perspective also questioned the idea of the homogeneity of collective actors and action, calling into question dominant ideas of social movement, resistance, and subalternity. She also espoused a more careful consideration of the social impact of law, institutionalized procedures, official statements and historical narratives. All of these are important in organization and interaction, and in scientific approaches, but in uneven ways, and sometimes as rhetoric or conspiracy theories displayed in interaction. Thus, organizing practices and force fields are analytical notions that focus on the complex and multiform fluxes of action. This methodological strategy connects research to ongoing processes of negotiation, performance, discursivity, and manipulation of fetishized objects and ideas. Taken more broadly, her ideas represent an alternative understanding to contemporary mainstream perspectives on social power (particularly poststructuralist views of power on a scale that cancels any consideration of actor/subject), and on social action (that ignore any wider and long-lasting patterns of interaction). This outstanding methodological and conceptual perspective transformed social research by offering us alternative ways to understand politics and state formation at the grassroots level, as well as development, law, bureaucracy, spatial order, and informality. Her publications* have inspired many students and colleagues working around the globe. This academic panel will follow her analytical approach by means of a reconsideration of her studies of land disputes in Mexico and Peru, the spatial regime in Brazilian favelas, the political activism of the PAH (Platform of Mortgage Victims) in Spain, the utopian aspirations among practitioners of break-dance in Ecuador, and informality and coproduction of urban space around the globe. By gathering junior and senior scholars pursuing anthropological explorations on grassroots politics in our contemporary societies, the panel will contribute to the ongoing evaluation of Nuijten´s work. In this sense, it furthers conversations sparked by the recent publication Engaged Encounter. Thinking about Forces, Fields and Friendships with Monique Nuijten by the Department of Sociology of Development and Change at the University of Wageningen, where she worked nearly her entire academic career. The five participants in this session, hailing from Europe and the Americas, will discuss multiple methodological and theoretical trajectories that underscore the relevance of Nuijten´s thought to their own research in progress.Regístrate
99Heritages and knowledge transfer from the narratives of alterity. Past and present reflections of travel writings, publications, collections, and museums.89Romina Abigail España Paredesromina.espana@cephcis.unam.mxAura Lisette Reyes GavilánWe are interested in opening a space for debate on various narratives of alterity, from which material and immaterial cultural heritages have been constructed, defined, and problematized in Latin America. On the one hand, we consider it relevant to analyze the knowledge transfer processes, in which take part global networks of interlocutors with asymmetric relations of power and knowledge. On the other hand, we would like to open the space to the study of the practices derived from the global networks of interlocutors: journalistic press, collections of archaeological and ethnographic objects, illustrations, books, travel writings, among others. We understand that these networks, practices, and materialities have built and legitimized discourses of difference, which are based on the relationship between ourselves and others. We invite you to reflect on these issues from interdisciplinary perspectives on the past and the present.Cultural heritage is the product of multiple stories, some named, and others forgotten or silenced. What today we consider as heritage results from a long history of sociocultural relations and exchanges between different interlocutors. A reflection on the networks, practices, and materials of the past, allows us to problematize the present and understand the multiple forms of cultural appropriation that underlie the discourses of “patrimonialization”. Working from the basis that anthropological sciences have played a key role in the cultural heritage production processes, a topic that is currently widely debated both in academia and outside of it, at this panel we are interested in investigating the transfer of knowledge present in narratives of alterity. Their practices and their products led to legitimize a tangible and intangible asset as heritage. Therefore, in this space we open the discussion to diverse views and interdisciplinary reflections on this problem, among which we include: ? Analyze the processes of knowledge transfer in contexts of asymmetric relations of power and knowledge. ? Characterize the actors taking part in global networks, recognizing their origin, gender, class, status, and the social places of each subject in the relationships built. ? Investigate the appropriation of cultural practices by each interlocutor, considering their cultural and social horizon. ? Analyze the relationship between the particular narratives of alterity produced in the past with the current discourses of local, national, and/or world heritage.Regístrate
100‘Handmade’—Craft, Authenticity and the Imagination in the Global and Local Interface90Ayami Nakataninakatani@okayama-u.ac.jpMichele HardyThis panel invites contributions from scholars of craft who probe the relationships between global producers and consumers, and question how and when ideals such as authenticity, tradition and the handmade are constructed. It seeks to elicit a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the tensions and collusions between these and their (likely uneven) impact on relationships that span the globe. Ultimately, this panel wonders whose interests are served when crafts are revitalized, when the authentic is prescribed, and the handmade rarefied? Over the course of history, crafts producers have not hesitated to adopt innovations or adapt their wares for new markets. The introduction of new instruments and techniques often meant a welcome reduction in time and offered the achievement of a wider range of patterns, colors, and forms. They also offered producers the means to better accommodate the changing lifestyles and tastes of consumers and fluctuating availability of materials. Ironically, the persistence of what we call ‘traditional’ craft is actually the result of constant innovation. More often than not the power to determine what is/is not authentic does not lie in the hands of makers. We wonder if, rather, it is more connected with consumers or others far removed from traditional producers —influenced by imagination, nostalgia and loss? How has the privileging of the handmade come to signal something more authentic, more valued and more legitimate than otherwise? Moreover, the handmade/machine-made dichotomy is not as simple as it looks. Where does the vital difference lie between machine and hand-embroidery? Whose interests are at stake? And how do these priorities affect the agency/viability/future of craft producers around the world? We enthusiastically welcome both case studies examining crafts and theory-oriented papers along the lines of above questions.This panel invites contributions from scholars of craft, who probe the relationships between producers and consumers, and question how and when authenticity, tradition and the handmade are constructed. It seeks to elicit a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the tensions and collusions between these and their (likely uneven) impact on relationships that span the globe. Ultimately, this panel wonders whose interests are served when crafts are revitalized, when the authentic is prescribed, and the hand-made rarefied? In this globalized world, notions of authenticity play a significant role linking geographically and culturally distant producers and consumers of handmade textiles and other crafts. Urban or cosmopolitan consumers who desire the objects of “others” are often driven by feelings of nostalgia for a long-lost or imagined past. When these crafts are celebrated as intangible cultural heritage and become subject to safeguarding practices, their authentic values are most often attributed to the age-old processes in which the craft items are produced by the skilled hands of artisans with high expertise and utmost care. Likewise, collectors and connoisseurs tend to value the fact that certain craft items are crafted manually rather than by machines. Over the course of history, however, global crafts producers did not hesitate to adopt innovations in terms of raw materials, techniques, and usages once they were introduced or developed. The introduction of new instruments and techniques meant a welcome reduction in time, often seen as a liberating device, and offered the achievement of a wider range of patterns, colors, and forms. They also offered producers the means to better accommodate the changing lifestyles and tastes of consumers and fluctuating availability of materials. In other words, the persistence of what we call ‘traditional’ craft is actually the result of constant innovation. Currently, multiple actors, including international and local NGOs, social activists, designers, and even the governments, have been involved with the preservation or revival of techniques such as natural dyes and hand skills in craft production. In some notable cases, local artisans initiate or embrace the revitalizing efforts of their ancestral techniques, consolidating cultural identity and ensuring economic viability. However, the power to determine what is/is not authentic does not necessarily lie in the hands of the makers. Moreover, the handmade/machine-made dichotomy is not as simple as it looks. Where does the vital difference lie between machine and hand-embroidery? Whose interests are at stake? And how do these priorities affect the agency/viability/future of craft producers around the world? We wonder if it is more connected with consumers or others far removed from traditional producers — influenced by imagination, nostalgia and loss? How has their privileging of the handmade (as opposed to the machine-made) come to signal something more authentic and more legitimate? And does this potentially undermine the agency/viability/future of craft producers around the world? We enthusiastically welcome both case studies examining different crafts from different parts of the world and theory-oriented papers along the lines of above questions.Regístrate
101Extractivism: a human rights-based approach [IUAES Commission of Human Rights]91Lucile Medinalucile.medina@univ-montp3.frMaría Victoria ChenautExtractivist policies in Latin America cause territory alterations, increasing the vulnerability of the population that settles there, and damaging the human, collective and gender rights of the inhabitants. In this panel, we invite a dialogue between anthropology and other social sciences disciplines to examine these issues and their impact on human rights. We are interested in analysing the tensions generated between these policies and the uses and traditional values of the groups already settled in the territories. In addition, we intend to document the vulnerability of the affected inhabitants, particularly those located in border regions between two countries, or within a country, between the extractive enclave and the surrounding rural environment. It would also be relevant to analyse the tension created between recognition of the rights of indigenous populations to dispose their territory resources (Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation - ILO), and the impact of extractivism on the affected population, which involves simultaneous and contradictory processes of timeliness and validity. In this sense, we consider that the notions of common heritage and human rights are at the centre of the discussionExtractivism is a strongly imposed economic model of natural resource exploitation throughout the American continent, also linked to historical modes of territorial development (Hall & Pérez Brignoli, 2003). Accumulation by dispossession is a concept that has become central in the theory of unequal geographic development that refers to an analysis of extractivism as a process of territorial dispossession, which associates the destruction of natural resources (Acosta, 2011; Gudynas, 2013) and the violation of individual, collective and gender rights of inhabitants. This panel discussion proposes to continue these analyses by associating the perspectives of anthropology and geography, and inviting other related fields, such as sociology, political science, history and law, to take part in the dialogue. The intention is to question the impacts of extractive activities by examining the relationship of populations with their territory, both in the materiality of their practices and in the representations that link them to their environment, as well as the need to investigate the differential impacts of these processes that are affecting men and women differently (Cabrapan and Hofmann, 2019). With the purpose of provoking a reflection on the way large-scale exploitation of natural resources affects people's human rights, those contributions that refer to Mexico, Central America (Robinson, 2003), and Latin America as a whole will be favoured. Extractive activities generate conflicts with the traditional uses and values of settled groups in the affected territories. It is of great interest to analyse this tension based on the consideration of the way in which the various actions of neoliberal policies worldwide threaten the collective rights of indigenous peoples. This is expressed through the impetus given by States to activities carried out by transnational extractive companies, such as oil exploitation, hydroelectric and infrastructure works, tourism development and large-scale crops for export, such as soybeans and pineapples, to name a few. It is necessary to document the vulnerability of rural inhabitants, indigenous or otherwise, in terms of violation of individual, collective and gender rights, paying special attention to the effect on certain territories, as is the case of communities located on the borders between two countries (Rodríguez & Prunier, 2020). We are also interested in proposals for papers that explore the tension generated by extractivism as regards the awareness expressed in certain sectors that a heritage - both natural and cultural - requires to be preserved. In face of the advance of extractivism, the notion of common heritage is increasingly echoed and is directly linked to the rights of populations to dispose of the resources within their territories, as established in ILO Convention 169. In Latin America, these two simultaneous and contradictory processes converge so we are interested in analysing them in this panel discussion.Regístrate
103Heritage and innovation. The research dissertations catalogue as a form of appropriation of our Latin American Anthropologies academic tradition.92ROBERTO MELVILLEmelville.ciesas@gmail.comJOHANNA PARRA, ANDREA CIACCHIThe compilation of social anthropology theses is a project of the Latin American Anthropology Association (ALA). It is aimed at building a closer relationship between the past and the present in each of the new anthropological investigations in Latin America. It is an innovative tool to develop the state of the art of an academic question. But simultaneously such universe of theses produces an image of the diverse collectivity of which we are part. It shows us how we have grown and expanded from modest origins at the end of World War II. It is also a census of institutions and individuals, their distribution by gender. And it is a map of the geographical distribution of schools and places studied and forgotten places. It is a cultural field conducive to asking ourselves: Who are we? What have we done? Who have we worked with and whom do our research serve? What do we want to keep from our past? How do we want to project ourselves into the future? We invite those who want to explore historical, geographical and thematic dimensions of our discipline to participate in this panel.In 2018, the Latin American Anthropological Association (ALA) organized a working group with a concrete purpose of collecting information about the dissertations and theses produced in the region. The first university programs for anthropological teaching and training were created around the end of World War II. A great challenge for these new institutions was to create linkages between traditional education and research activities. The first theses and dissertations are treasures relics of such attempts to relate classroom education with fieldwork research activities. Archaeological discoveries, library analysis of colonial reports, and field expeditions into Indian secluded areas are among the first common results of anthropological research. Voluntary teams were organized in each country to begin looking into precious lists of early dissertations, and contemporary registers of graduate students. Three years later, local national teams shared bibliographic data of 21,300 items collected, from 90 scattered institutions in the geography of nine Latin American countries. Such information became readily available for students and researchers at the web page https://antropotesis.alterum.info. Analysis of dissertation titles calls for full-text reading of selected works in other countries. Participants in this collective research project welcome the resulting catalogue as a shadow representation of who we are, and what we have done during the last 75 years. We know that few instruments are available, for students and researchers in social sciences in general, in order to gain detailed knowledge about geographic, historical and ethnical composition of different countries from our own. In general, newspaper articles, libraries stocks, research budgets, regular student exchange, are framed for local or national concerns. The recognition of our common and diverse heritage is a result of a concerted effort to create new digital tools and forms of knowledge exchange. In our anthropological endeavour, the regional perspective should be refurbished regularly. Student’s research aims must be framed, not only with local and national concerns in mind, but with a larger regional reconsideration of our global position, as well. The research topics of anthropologists in past epochs and neighboring countries should be systematically explored in the state of the art of new research proposals. Our academic heritage of Latin American anthropologies must be considered every time a new proposal is written. New initiatives of professional interaction, of cross-countries comparisons, of academic publications in foreign journals should be part of the individual and collective agenda of our scientific development. Our panel is designed as an invitation for exploration and recognition of new initiatives such as our dissertation catalogue. We need to share information about repositories, web pages, academic guides for the study of the histories of anthropology in different contexts. Cross-cultural linkages should be designed and reinforced among our southern Latin American anthropologies. Forms of appropriation of internet communications should encourage the transmission and diffusion of local production and reviews of anthropological literature. The production of all sorts of web pages with wide open intellectual interests is becoming a new grammar for the communication of ideas.Regístrate
104Obstetric violence on a global scale: Epistemic production of learning, ethnography, social activism and the political economy of anthropological knowledge. [The anthropology of women]93Paola María Sesia paolasesia@gmail.comArachu Castro, Patrizia QuattrocchiObstetric violence combines gender violence with institutional violence. It refers to a systematic, naturalized, and normalized problem with abuse, lack of respect, overmedicalization, loss of autonomy, and discrimination that many women experience in institutional bio-obstetrics. It is a global problem, although it is embedded in particularities in each country/healthcare system that ethnography can well illustrate and anthropologists analyze and interpret. It is a polysemic and, at the same time, powerful epistemic concept, coined and widely used in Latin America (LA) to describe, analyze, judicialize, legislate and, additionally, transform the reality it names. In 2014, the WHO defined—in a restrained and somewhat unassertive way—some aspects of this problem as “abuse and lack of respect” or, simply D&A for discrimination and abuse, while drawing attention to its magnitude and global extent. In the last four years, the episteme obstetric violence has found wider resonance beyond LA, has gained acceptance by the United Nations, and has entered forcefully in the academic production of the global North. However, we are concerned—and this session proposes to discuss the issue openly— that there has been an appropriation of the concept of obstetric violence but without recognizing the scholarship from LA, produced in Spanish or Portuguese. This issue is partly due to linguistic barriers, but is also linked to an inherent coloniality that permeates much anglophone anthropological production that leads to a process of epistemic expropriation—without a clear intentionality or even when theoretical premises and political positions are shared. This session aims to include participants from LA, Europe, and North America to promote a dialogue between global North-South and South-South anthropologists, engage in an equitable exchange between anglophone, Spanish-speaking, and Portuguese scholarship and contribute to the global ethnographic study of obstetric violence, as an open, critical, constructive, and collaborative endeavor.This session aims to analyze obstetric violence from a multifaceted and global perspective that includes ethnographic contributions from multiple contexts and healthcare systems. It also intends to critically identify some of the issues and concerns that the academic production around this problem covers, in different latitudes, countries and languages, including those produced in Latin America. We will also touch on the political economy of anthropological knowledge production, focusing on the episteme obstetric violence. The objectives of the session include: 1. Establish a fruitful dialogue between some Latin American scholars with colleagues from Europe, North America, and other latitudes, who study the problem of obstetric violence from a broad ethnographic perspective, to include case studies illustrative of the multiplicity of experiences and configurations in different countries and healthcare systems. 2. To recognize some of the epistemic contributions and analytical discussions around the problem of obstetric violence from Latin America and critically discuss the recent and growing appropriation of this concept in the anglophone hegemonic academic production. 3. Discuss the relationship, differences and/or tensions between the production of anthropological knowledge about obstetric violence, on the one hand, and the work of activist scholarship, on the other; the latter, devoted not only to investigating but also solving the problem, from a perspective that actively defends and promotes the reproductive rights of women in healthcare settings. The dialogue we propose is relevant, important, and urgent, for at least three reasons. First, the problem of obstetric violence is universal, and appeals to a profoundly patriarchal and misogynistic bio-obstetrics in its origins, institutional establishment, and professional training all over the globe, even with its multiple micro-regional and/or national specificities. This session could reveal some of those facets at the intersection of the universal/global and the specific/local; an intersection that ethnography is well apt to illuminate: for example, when pregnant women from particular groups suffer specific structural vulnerabilities in bio-obstetric care, compared to others. Second, in Latin American scholarship the field of activist research is quite widespread, with a shared commitment to participate in the transformation of the conditions that allow the existence, prevalence, and magnitude of obstetric violence within our respective healthcare systems and where anthropological inquiry has been nourished by contributions from feminist movements and the activist drive for the humanization of childbirth. This session could allow us to confront this double dimension, in different national settings. Third, we find necessary to engage in the debate regarding the appropriation but also the expropriation of a concept (obstetric violence) that takes place today in academia from the global North, especially in anglophone literature, without taking into sufficient account the theoretical, methodological, and thematic contributions from Latin American scholarship, in a neocolonial extraction process that is not new. A frank, constructive, and open dialogue between colleagues from different hemispheres will draw attention to the hegemonic ways of anglophone academic production and the silencing of other anthropological contributions, shedding light to the epistemic, political, and ethical implications of these phenomena centered on the problem of obstetric violence.Regístrate
105Future of Futurity: Generation, heritage, and interconnection in an aging world [Aging and the Life Course]94Jason A Danelyjdanely@brookes.ac.ukLeng Leng ThangIn the wake of multiple global crises, futurity can seem inaccessible. In this context, older people are not only more vulnerable, but they may also be held responsible for their generation's lack of foresight. This panel looks to re-imagine notions of generation and heritage in ways that work to repair and restore narratives of the future in which elders and all generations can participate and thrive. It will look at this future of heritage as a process of making places and times for aging in contexts of transnational mobility, environmental change, and global health challenges. It will also examine how new relationships between generations create potential for new forms of community, care and shared life.Elders are not only the living bonds to our heritage, but as the world's population ages, they are also reflections of our future selves. Across the world, the coronavirus pandemic has revealed the fragility of institutions and care systems for keeping these elders socially connected, healthy and safe. COVID-19 mortality statistics among older adults, devastating as they are, still fail to capture the full scope of the widespread effects of the pandemic on the isolation and neglect of older people and caregivers, a situation that has been made possible, in many cases, by decades of welfare retrenchment and neoliberal policies. This panel not only addresses the urgent need to confront the scale of 'gerocide' (Cohen 2020) brought about through the various discursive and affective conditions amplified in the wake of the pandemic, but it also takes up questions about the future of futurity. How will communities, institutions and heritages shape the future rather than simply react to the present? How can a greater recognition of the value of older people’s contributions to care and work restore a sense of futurity in the midst of crisis? We argue that futurity can be seen in everyday micro-level efforts at creating a "good life" in old age, in utopian projects of livable communities, and in efforts to form a more global consciousness of generational interconnection. Such multi-scalar speculative imaginations of our aging futures sets forth a critical agenda for anthropology in ways that demand methodological innovations to challenge normative ageist, ableist, heteronormative colonial epistemologies (Chazan 2020). The papers in this panel demonstrate the rich breadth of aging experiences and expression, including the ways older people participate in and shape political life and work to create, repair and maintain interconnections between heritage and future generational imaginaries. These interconnections are situated both within and between places, as rural-urban and transnational mobility introduces both challenges and affordances for dwelling and building shared futures. Examining aging through places of interconnection also requires engaging not with a single notion of a linear, progressive futurity, but with multiplex chronicities: waiting and anticipating, repetition and remembering, as well as the longer frames of generational, historical, and ecological cycles. Sustaining a world where the environment can support an aging population is also critical to a sense of futurity, and demands that we think of global interconnections that extend beyond the human, toward a frame of “intergenerational heritage” as ecological and multi-species work (van Dooren 2017). Discourses of intergenerational conflict, indifference and abandonment, amplified in times of crisis, risk foreclosing on futurity. This panel asks how anthropology can contribute to reimagining generation and heritage in ways that repair and restore a sense of futurity while keeping it grounded in the lived experiences of age.Regístrate
108Tensions and resignifications of work as a value of cultural heritage95Clara Elisa Manciniclaraemancini@gmail.comWilma Marques Leitão, Gabriela Landini, Cecilia Pérez WinterCurrently, the concept of cultural heritage has been expanded. From appreciating aspects such as monumentality and aesthetics, other types of heritage have been activated for decades.The specificities that are sought to stand out from the diversity of places, practices, knowledge, objects that can be recognized as cultural heritages, they become visible from the adjectives with which they are accompanied: built, architectural, ethnological, industrial, rural, etc. Also, we can observe that the focus is not only placed on the "physical" aspect, but rather differentiates between those "tangible / intangible" or "material / immaterial" elements. Likewise, in this category as in others --such as cultural landscapes, itineraries and industrial heritage-- work and the know-how are implicitly resignified under the discourse of promoting respect for cultural diversity or as forms of reparation, justifying their preservation. In this context, the emergence and implementation of programs and actions for the recovery, preservation, management and enhancement of cultural heritage linked to productive processes, in the historical development of capitalism, is noted. In recent decades, there has been a proliferation of state and non-state policies, initiatives and programs that promote the configuration and dissemination of intangible cultural heritages associated with traditional and / or ancestral practices and knowledge --generally associated within a place or territory-- in which the work --as an identity element of the local communities-- is implicit as a value to be highlighted. Given the above, the general objective of this panel is to investigate how the work produced by the subaltern classes, as a workforce in relation to the history of capitalist exploitation, is resignified and translated by cultural heritage in terms of identity, memories, subjects and territories, as well as the tensions and conflict that these process generate, express or reproduce.The general objective of this proposal is to discuss how the work is resignified and translated by certain actors as cultural heritage. In turn, what types of relationships and between what subjects are recovered, legitimized and inscribed in the discourses on the conformation of the national culture. Since the proliferation of discourses associated with development during the 1950s, those elements and practices associated with cultural aspects have been the subject of public policies --oriented from initiatives proposed by international and national organizations-- in pursuit of promoting the socio-economic revitalization of territories in crisis. Thus, cultural heritage is valued for its duality: being conceived as a symbolic representation of an identity but also as a resource that allows to generate or promote other economic dynamics. However, these processes are not harmonics ones, especially when these include direct or indirect commoditization. These contexts are an opportunity to delve into pre-existing conflicts, in addition to investigating those that are generated during the process of patrimonialization/heritagization itself. Unequal power relations --cultural, social, political, economic - are expressed, such as the invisibility and the marginalization of people, practices and territories. While, at the same time, traditional and ancestral knowledge, related to productive activities, for example artisan work, are activated. The starting premise of this panel is that the practices, landscapes, objects and knowledge are considered as cultural heritage by sectors that occupy privileged positions in society, and they are legitimizing from the present processes and stages of capitalist development under narratives that resort to ancestral and / or traditional practices. In this framework, we expect contributions that allow us to discuss: 1) The context of municipal, provincial and / or national heritage public policies and even international ones, what subjects, under what conditions and in what way they are made visible. 2) How the local and regional heritage, focused on work, are inserted in the socio-economic and productive history of the nation. 3) The treatment and representation of asymmetric production relationship; class, ethnic and gender conflicts; and the historical contexts of production in contemporary discourses and heritage policies. 4) Modalities, degree of participation, decision-making and action of the participating communities in the selection of their cultural heritage and associated content. 5) The nature of the public policies that emerge from these claims, analyze the scope and limitations of the propositional arguments.Regístrate
109Genealogies of Feminist Anthropology in Central America and the Caribbean [Global Feminisms and Queer Politics]96Marisa G. Ruiz Trejomarisaruiztrejo@unach.mxAna María Mata Parducci, Lina Rosa Berrio PalomoFeminist anthropology is part of the profound transformations that the discipline has undergone since the 1960s. It has been configured as a particular field of work, with topics of interest, concepts, categories, methodological reflections and specific ethical dilemmas. In this sense, this symposium is interested in presenting some reflections to fill an academic gap, through the work of anthropologists from different universities, countries and generations of Central America and the Caribbean. We are seeking to bring together colleagues interested in delineating the genealogies of feminist anthropologies in their countries by putting into dialogue the epistemological and methodological models that have been useful in each country and region, with the personal trajectories of the researchers, linked to the contexts in which the production of knowledge has been elaborated, some of them marked by the complaints regarding the androcentric logic and the multiple violence in the academic, activist and political and social organizations. The symposium aims to collectively reflect on the specific circumstances that Central American and Caribbean feminist anthropologists have experienced, from the pioneers to the younger generations, as well as to analyze the barriers and obstacles they have had to overcome and the strategies they have used to do so in different stages but, in particular, we are interested in highlighting their contributions to the shaping of feminist anthropologies in the region.The incorporation of the feminist perspective in Latin American anthropology has few accounts of the process that has followed the conformation of this perspective in the different countries of the continent (Castañeda). The specialists interested in recovering the trajectories of feminist anthropology in Latin America have focused more on the contexts of Argentina (Tarducci), Brazil (Sardemberg and Grossi), Uruguay (Rostagnol) and Mexico (Castañeda and Goldsmith). However, there are few studies that delve into the genealogies of feminist anthropology in contexts such as the Central American and Caribbean region. Specialists in making epistemological reflections have alluded to how frequently the works of Anglo-Saxon authors have been imported into the Latin American context (Castañeda). Some have also observed how in English-speaking magazines there is almost always a reduced presence of Latin American women as authors and they are often located in the place of “object of study” (Goldsmith, 1995). The works of women in Central America and the Caribbean have hardly been referenced due to multiple problems that did not allow the establishment and institutionalization of feminist anthropology in the region, as has happened in spaces such as the Anglo-Saxon. These events include the genocide in Guatemala; the political persecution of indigenous and Afro-descendant leaders, the disappearances, torture, and mass murders in the de facto governments in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the eighties (20th century); the low intensity war and counterinsurgent policies in Chiapas; the effects of neoliberalism, such as forced migration, the care economy, tourism, environmental conflicts, debt; and neocolonial processes in the Caribbean. Furthermore, all the structural violence has produced a multidimensionality of inequalities throughout the region. Therefore, the objective of this panel is to identify and analyze the genealogies of feminist anthropologists, as well as the discussions and conditions in which the anthropology of women and feminists anthropologies have been developed in this region. For anthropological sciences, it is necessary to know how feminist studies in anthropology were born, as well as the events that have marked important moments in this epistemic community in such little-studied cultural areas as Central America and the Caribbean. With this, the participants will contribute to place some lines of research on the subject through dialogue based on their experiences, on the recognition of their genealogies, on the projection of their knowledge and on the prospect of forming an epistemic subcommunity in the region.Regístrate
110Whose Heritage, Whose Places, Whose Voices ? Feminist inquiry into Better Futures [The Commission on Global Feminisms and Queer Politics]97Katarzyna Kosmalakatarzyna.kosmala@uws.ac.ukFiona Hackney, Rosa Blanca, Jana MilovanovićThis panel invites interdisciplinary inquiries, embracing innovative action research, arts-based approaches, cross-agency activism-inspired engagement strategies and examples of applied feminism in researching engendered heritage, neglected cultures and peripheral places while enabling side-lined, unheard or muted voices. As we experience raising inequalities, climate change challenges and health risks, including the global pandemic posing threats to the quality of life across the world, the question is in what ways the politics of heritage can challenge existing power structures. We also seek contributions that explore how heritage regimes can contribute to uneven power relations. We welcome case studies from across the globe, artistic inquiries, social justice engagements and traditional papers that address the ways people experience heritage, understand their pasts and enable futures. One focus will be the notion of ‘living heritage’, whereby heritage is understood in terms of local activities: festivals, events, community collections and interventions, rather than simply the possession of material things - imaginative responses to, and critical engagement with the heritage, places and spaces. The panel will examine how these understandings can bring about change, empower marginalized groups, celebrate their and our stories while safeguarding traditions and cultural and historic resources. Equally, the panel will explore various feminist and activist inspired methods, aesthetics and tools that can support the protection of heritage that communities value, including neglected and vernacular sites, Indigenous cultural artefacts and endangered practices. It calls for a revisionist account that questions who a particular narrative belongs to. This panel challenges the concept of heritage and heritage objects within professional settings as ciphers for dominant cultural constructs and discourses expressing identity and power. Rather, it foregrounds the political tensions of ownerships and rights, proposing a version of heritage that opens spaces for new modes of practice and discourse that foster diverse identities, well-being, and revitalise civic agencies.This panel takes a highly engaged, imaginative and inclusive approach to heritage. It aims to examine heritage in the context of contemporary and future concerns, looking to learn from the past to envisage a better, more inclusive, socially, and environmentally sustainable future as well as to rewrite history. It is interdisciplinary in nature, bringing together social scientists and arts and humanities scholars, as well as artists, designers, craftspeople, curators, activists, environmentalists, and heritage practitioners. We aim to facilitate a dialogue between anthropologists and other disciplinary fields, applying feminist activist inquiry concerning better futures and jointly seeking answers to the question: Whose Heritage, Whose Places, Whose Voices? This panel invites interdisciplinary inquiries, embracing innovative action research, arts-based approaches, cross-agency activism-inspired engagement strategies and examples of applied feminism in researching engendered heritage, neglected cultures and peripheral places while enabling side-lined, unheard or muted voices. As we experience raising inequalities, climate change challenges and health risks, including the global pandemic posing threats to the quality of life across the world, the question is in what ways the politics of heritage can challenge existing power structures. We also seek contributions that explore how heritage regimes can contribute to uneven power relations. We welcome case studies from across the globe, artistic inquiries, social justice engagements and traditional papers that address the ways people experience heritage, understand their pasts and enable futures. One focus will be the notion of ‘living heritage’, whereby heritage is understood in terms of local activities: festivals, events, community collections and interventions, rather than simply the possession of material things - imaginative responses to, and critical engagement with the heritage, places and spaces. The panel will examine how these understandings can bring about change, empower marginalized groups, celebrate their and our stories while safeguarding traditions and cultural and historic resources. Equally, the panel will explore various feminist and activist inspired methods, aesthetics and tools that can support the protection of heritage that communities value, including neglected and vernacular sites, Indigenous cultural artefacts and endangered practices. It calls for a revisionist account that questions who a particular narrative belongs to. This panel challenges the concept of heritage and heritage objects within professional settings as ciphers for dominant cultural constructs and discourses expressing identity and power. Rather, it foregrounds the political tensions of ownerships and rights, proposing a version of heritage that opens spaces for new modes of practice and discourse that foster diverse identities, well-being, and revitalise civic agencies.Regístrate
111Natural Heritage, Cultural Heritage, and the Politics of Protection and Preservation [Anthropology and the Environment; Anthropology, Public Policy and Development Practice]98Gregory L Acciaioligregory.acciaioli@uwa.edu.auNilika MehrotraThis panel, co-sponsored by the Commission of Anthropology and the Environment and the Commission on Anthropology, Public Policy and Development Practice, addresses the politics of heritage determinations, particularly the intersections and divergences of natural and cultural heritage. While represented as distinguishable, both types of heritage may be intertwined in the determination of World Heritage status, as in the case of Mt. Fuji in Japan. Natural sites are also cultural landscapes, as the erection of shrines and sponsoring of pilgrimages and other institutionalised modes of access and memorialisation blur the boundaries of nature and culture. As distinguished from lived-in vernacular culture, heritage requires a process of nonlocal recognition, either by an encompassing state or by a transnational body such as UNESCO. Once recognised, heritage is subject to regimens of protection and preservation, once again under the aegis of the state. While intangible heritage may be subjected to protocols of codification and standards maintenance, cultural and natural resources are usually subjected to encompassment within a designated park or other boundary-setting institution, often accompanied by the construction of museums and other explicating institutions that enshrine and promulgate the official histories of these sites and promote cultural development. Such processes are inherently political in nature, dependent upon negotiation and imposition determined within a policy process involving parties of differing levels of power. This panel seeks papers analysing these inherently political processes in sites both natural and cultural. Papers may cover such topics as policy processes in the determination of protected areas, the politics of heritage construction in museums, the operation of transnational heritage-recognising agencies, the impacts of globalisation and securitisation upon heritage policy, and others. This panel welcomes not only traditional presentations based on powerpoints and papers, but also media presentations, interactive formats, and other innovative modes of presentation.This panel, co-sponsored by the Commission on Anthropology and the Environment and the Commission on Anthropology, Public Policy and Development Practice, addresses the politics of heritage determinations, particularly the intersections and divergences of natural and cultural heritage. While represented as distinguishable, both types of heritage may be intertwined in the determination of World Heritage status, as in the case of Mt. Fuji in Japan. Natural sites are also cultural landscapes, as the erection of shrines and sponsoring of pilgrimages and other institutionalised modes of access and memorialisation blur the boundaries of nature and culture. As distinguished from lived-in vernacular culture, heritage requires a process of nonlocal recognition, either by an encompassing state or by a transnational body such as UNESCO. Once recognised, heritage is subject to regimens of protection and preservation, once again under the aegis of the state. While intangible heritage may be subjected to protocols of codification and standards maintenance, cultural and natural resources are usually subjected to encompassment within a designated park or other boundary-setting institution, often accompanied by the construction of museums and other explicating institutions that enshrine and promulgate the official histories of these sites and promote cultural development. These forms of heritage governance often are instituted in response to the imperatives of tourism provision rather than the needs of local peoples whose ‘resources’ have been so recognised. Such processes are inherently political in nature dependent upon negotiation and imposition determined within a policy process involving parties of differing levels of power. This panel seeks papers that analyse these inherently political processes in sites that may be regarded as both natural and cultural. Papers may cover such topics, among others, as: The politics and policy processes surrounding the creation and continuance (and sometimes demise) of national parks, reserves, and other protected areas, including which groups are allowed continued settlement or intermittent access to them and which are evicted or otherwise denied access. The heritage-constructing processes of museums and other commemorating institutions that seek to authorise particular narratives of natural and cultural genesis and allocate the possession of (intangible) knowledge, as well as the political consequences of such legitimisation. The operation of such transnational institutions as UNESCO, IUCN, Blue Shield International and other agencies and organisations that establish protocols of entry and exclusion and provide the criteria of what natural and cultural resources are threatened and worthy of preservation, including how these policy decisions have impacted on the practices of local peoples in the surrounds. The impacts of globalisation and securitisation upon the conceptualisation and enforcement of natural and cultural heritage upon those caught within the proliferation of new zones of conservation, protection, preservation and securitisation and their responses to enclavement and imposition of new types of borders and passages. This panel welcomes not only traditional presentations based on powerpoints and papers, but also media presentations, interactive frameworks, and other innovative modes of presentation, subject to time constraints imposed by the conference organisers.Regístrate
112Political turns in Latin America: between crisis, discrimination, new and old spoil99Laura R Valladares de la Cruzlauravalladares.delacruz@gmail.comRebecca Igreja LemosAt this table, we propose to discuss the impacts that the political turns to the right and the new populisms are having in Latin America, with which the dispossessions of indigenous territories have been reinforced as part of the extractivist model that has been in place for more than two decades. We are interested in knowing how racism, dispossession, criminalization of just protest and violation of human rights are expressed in different countries of Latin AmericaAt this table we propose to discuss the impacts that the political turns to the right and the new populisms are having in Latin America with which the dispossessions of indigenous territories have been reinforced. This movement is part of the extractivist model that has been in place for more than two decades, in what Harvey has pointed out as a shift from the capitalist accumulation model towards a “accumulation by dispossession” model. This model has been accompanied by the transmutation of welfare states to states of control, or penal states in terms of Wacquant (2009), which has resulted in processes of criminalization and racialization of their opponents. To broaden the debate, we are also interested in discussing at this table the processes of racializations, gender violence and discrimination that have been exacerbated and revealed with enormous harshness throughout the Covid Pandemic19. In this framework and from an anthropological point of view, we will also seek to account for the processes of struggle and resistance that are taking place in different geographies and sectors of the Latin American continentRegístrate
113Destination Mexico: The Environmental Factors Mitigating Tourism, Livelihood, and Life in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean [Commission of Anthropology and Environment ; Commission of Anthropology and Tourism]100Heather OLearyolear079@umn.eduLukasz KaczmarekAnthropology examines the dynamic implications of how culture and heritage is challenged, reinforced, and renegotiated in today’s interconnected world. As the physical movement of people across the world dramatically changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was paralleled by equally dramatic physical evidence of environmental rebounding, stabilization, and deterioration. Global interconnections drive people and the world around them into different relationships mediated by cultural and trans-human exchanges and complicated by diverse heritages of managing environmental change. These diverse cultural frameworks around the natural world are even more compelling in areas of high cultural exchange. At once tourist and ecological hotspots, areas surrounding Mexico have begun to face new existential questions from COVID-19 as well as perennial challenges, opportunities, and frameworks. Tourism-based fieldsites generate physical and existential data that reflect differing socio-cultural responses to the United Nations Sustainability framework for the triple bottom line valuing people, planet, and prosperity. This panel will explore how unique bio-geo-physical-chemical heritages and socio-cultural practices approach “people, planet, and prosperity” in this region of intersecting countries, waters, and cultures. The papers on the panel will address how past practices provide clues about what new forms and new relations of people and planet are possible.Anthropology examines the dynamic implications of how culture and heritage is challenged, reinforced, and renegotiated in today’s interconnected world. These interconnections are not static; they respond to different structures, rhythms, and power relations. As the physical movement of people across the world dramatically changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was paralleled by equally dramatic physical evidence of environmental rebounding, stabilization, and deterioration. Global interconnections drive people and the world around them into different relationships mediated by cultural and trans-human exchanges and complicated by diverse heritages of managing environmental change. These diverse cultural frameworks around the natural world are even more compelling in areas of high cultural exchange. At once tourist and ecological hotspots, areas like Mexico, the Gulf of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean region have begun to face new existential questions from COVID-19 as well as perennial challenges, opportunities, and frameworks. These areas represent the juxtaposition of diverse cultural heritages and values both thorough historical exchanges of local empire and colonialism and the heritages and values in comparatively recent contexts of postcolonialism and international tourism. They are vibrant sites for understanding heritage and environmental management. Tourism-based fieldsites generate physical and existential data that reflect differing socio-cultural responses to the United Nations Sustainability framework for the triple bottom line valuing people, planet, and prosperity. This panel will explore how unique bio-geo-physical-chemical heritages and socio-cultural practices approach “people, planet, and prosperity” in this region of intersecting countries, waters, and cultures. The papers on the panel will address how past practices provide clues about what new forms and new relations of people and planet are possible.Regístrate
114Heritage and heritagizations in Mayan communities101Ella F. Quintalefqa@hotmail.comValentina VapnarskyHeritage and heritagizations in Mayan communities In recent decades, the notion of “cultural heritage” (Sp. “patrimonio cultural”), has taken on considerable importance not only at the level of cultural and socioeconomic policies, but also as a tool for social recognition and economic income for indigenous populations. Within this framework, the “boom” of “the Maya” was exploited in by both Mexican and Guatemalan macro-tourism, with its intense folklorization of aspects of Mayan life and culture, and invested by Mayan communities and peoples that have undertaken processes of heritagization for the purpose of self-managing the tourist activities on offer: visits to cenotes, hiking, ethno-tourism, etc. However, in these two areas, under the term “cultural heritage” –whether tangible or intangible–, often divergent, sometimes antagonistic conceptions of the relationship with the past and the environment are displayed. Studies on the regimes of temporality have shown to what extent the Western idea of a stable and perennial heritage is opposed to the Amerindian conceptions of the past and of the future, conceived under the height of transformation, regeneration or oblivion. On the other hand, the advance of neo-extractivism processes has led to the organization of important sectors of the Mayan peoples and communities for the defense of what they explicitly consider their "heritage" and which they see threatened by "development" projects decided without their consent. If from the economic point of view, these situations can be understood as processes of dispossession, from the perception of the people, they are presented as processes of defense of spaces, entities and times with which they interweave essential relationships. This proposal addresses the various responses of the Mayan peoples and communities to heritagization. Based on the analysis of specific cases, how these processes affect the vision that the Mayans have of their own history and elements of their culture.Heritage and heritagizations in Mayan communities The issue of cultural heritage is not new. Since the second half of the last century, especially, the declarations of cultural heritage by UNESCO in relation to monumental or exceptional constructions and the safeguarding of intangible or living cultural heritage have acquired an increasing importance and visibility. Adjectives used to describe the notion of heritage have also multiplied. In the Mayan area, declared cultural heritage has mainly concerned archeological sites. These are processes of heritagization directed from above. These state-induced heritagizations are intimately linked with tourism development, in a world context where, for an important part of the population of rich countries and of certain social layers of so-called underdeveloped countries, vacations and travel have become essential practices. The pandemic has highlighted the extent to which restrictions on these practices have sparked protests and even mobilizations in both Europe and America. The "impact" of tourism in the Maya region has increasingly meant that the capitals of this sector of the global economy has appropriated elements of gastronomy, fauna, rituals, clothing, from the Mayan communities and localities. Within this framework, capital has “de facto” heritagized, also from above, parts of the geography and various aspects of Mayan culture. The degree of folklorization to which all these aspects of Mayan life and culture are subjected for marketing reasons is astonishing. On the other hand, the "boom" of "the Mayan" has led communities and their people to also undertake processes of heritagization for the purpose of self-managing the tourist activities on offer: visits to cenotes, hiking, ethno-tourism, ecotourism, traditional medicine, origin therapies, ancestral and similar experiences. For these, one could perhaps speak of heritagization processes from below. In addition, the advance of neo-extractivism processes in the region has led to the organization of important sectors of the Mayan peoples and communities to defend what they explicitly consider to be their heritage, which they see threatened by "development" projects decided without their consent. If from the economic point of view, these situations can be understood as processes of dispossession, from the people’s responses, they can be seen as processes of defense of heritage and territory. This proposal will deal with the various responses of the Mayan peoples and communities to heritagization from above and with the attempts, experiences and movements of heritagization from below. Based on the analysis of specific cases, how these processes affect the vision that the Mayans have of their own history and elements of their culture will receive special attention. We also hope that the materials and contents of these presentations contribute to enrich the way in which international cultural institutions approach indigenous peoples and societies.Regístrate
115Explaining ruralities in the capitalocene: conceptual tools from an ethnographic perspective102Leonor Alejandra Gonzalez Navalagonzalez@politicas.unam.mxIñigo Gonzalez de la FuenteFor decades, rural populations have confronted intense processes of change, marked by deagrarization, precarity, work flexibility, environmental deterioration, the intensification of tourism and commerce, migration and work mobility; all to have access to a labor market with diverse and distant jobs. These changes have produced new scenarios where we can observe renovated forms of land dispossession, environmental exploitation and class structures, as well as the reconfiguration and diversity of communal living, identities and social inequalities. We understand culture as a dynamic and fluid process, so, in these panel we look to understand and explain these processes of political, economic, socioenvironmental and cultural reconfigurations in the context of the Capitalocene. We aim to engage with this concept suggested by Jason Moore and reflect on the diverse rural scenarios framed under this era. The Capitalocene is, at the same time an epoch and a particular way of organizing the world and the living and nonliving things in it. Beginning in the “long XVI century”, accumulation became the main drive of social relations. Unlike the Anthropocene, the Capitalocene acknowledges the forces of capital and the hegemony that shaped socioeconomic and cultural dynamics that made possible the capitalist relations and class and power processes imbued in the modernist project. Thus, using the Capitalocene as an epistemological umbrella, our goal is to understand and explain the local rural contemporary expressions of accumulation and enrich the discussion of concepts and/or phenomena (precarity, local understandings of entrepreneurship, forms of violence, inequality, ecotourism, rural gentrification, dispossession, neoliberal subjects, and others) to help us think and situate the multiple shapes and forms of rural living. The panelists are invited to dialectically interweave these concepts with their case studies and research experiences in order to account for the multiplicity of processes, relations and disputes in the rural worlds today.In order to understand the Capitalocene we must first discuss the Anthropocene. The severe environmental crisis and changes in the last decades, including but not reduced to climate change, put forward in the public debate and in the scientific inquiry the significant anthropic impact on the world. These concerns pushed some thinkers like Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer (2000) to define a new geological era not driven by geological forces, but by human activities. The most commonly accepted date of the beginning of this era is the Industrial Revolution, characterized by its carbon footprint. Although the Anthropocene evolved into two separate discussions, the geological and the sociohistorical, both advanced the importance of climate change in public debates; nonetheless, the latter has been seriously questioned and debated. The main critiques, derived from critical social sciences, revolve around the simplistic and neutral narrative of an homogeneous humanity as the driving force of change in the planet. This easy story told by the Anthropocene don’t take into account deeper historical causes, the political and social context, as well as the class and power relations embedded in contemporary socioenvironmental problems. A razor sharp critique of the Anthropocene was made by Jason Moore. Since 2015, he proposed an alternative to this story: the Capitalocene. A historical era that dates back to, what he calls, the long XVI Century, namely the conquest and colonization of the Americas, a process that set the wheels turning to what today is the heart and soul of this epoch and its main driving force: capital accumulation. Thinking with Moore’s work, this panel aims to engage in the reflection and analysis of anthropological categories and conceptual tools emanated from ethnographic and anthropological inquiry, in order to understand and explain the multiplicity of rural forms in the midst of the Capitalocene. Some of the concepts we seek to engage with are: precarity, local understandings of entrepreneurship, forms of violence, inequality, ecotourism, rural gentrification, dispossession, the production of neoliberal subjects, among others. Drawing from a social anthropology toolset, we invite panelists to dialectically interweave these concepts with case studies and research experiences, in order to account for and explain the multiplicity of individual and/or collective strategies deployed by rural subjects, as well as the social reconfigurations produced by this processes that intertwine gender, age, class, identity and the socioenvironment. Our ultimate goal is to assess a series of theoretical categories, deeply rooted in ethnographic fieldwork, which will then enable us to map and understand the complex and diverse rural world in the Capitalocene. These categories, we hope, will then be organized into an ethnographic theory rich glossary useful for anthropological research.Regístrate
116Midwifery practice and reproductive healthcare: between cultural diversity and institutionalization103Yaredh Marín Vázquezyaredh.mv@gmail.comCristina Alonso LordMidwifery is one of the oldest female professions. However, since the early twentieth century, the profession has tended to be displaced and defined through the process of institutionalization into healthcare systems, driven in part by the development of biomedicine as a hegemonic paradigm and the asymmetric construction of scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, midwifery has survived around the globe. Midwifery practices –in their wide variety- are closely related to everyday life. Through their practice, midwives mobilize knowledge, beliefs, ritual and resources oriented towards sexual, reproductive and neonatal well-being. In practice, a midwife must overcome many barriers and adapt to cultural constructs that include institutional standards of care, state regulations, principles of self-care, and individual / collective performative construction. Both midwives and non-midwives have argued over the last century and a half over what is the “best way” to practice the profession. Their discussions have sparked public debates that highlight the grey areas in which midwives work; in fact, many are forced to operate in secrecy and a-legality. The enormous plasticity of midwifery as a cultural expression is a fertile entry point to analyse power relations with regard to bodies. We will explore how, through midwifery regulation, governments create guidelines inorder to control women's bodies and their reproductive potential. The experiences of researchers studying midwifery included in this panel will enrich our anthropological understanding of the relationships between corporeality, nation-states, the production and valuation of knowledge, the right to health, and social inequalities. The current global pandemic has required the reorganization of health systems, while exposing differential access to obstetric health services and persistent inequities in accessing safe and appropriate health care in sexual and reproductive health. These inquiries acquire additional relevance, as sources and bridges of dialogue between different actors that could contribute to greater equity and justice in health care access.Midwifery is one of the oldest female professions. Throughout the world, one can find numerous archaeological and historical records of midwives caring for women and newborns. However, since the early twentieth century, the profession has tended to be displaced and defined through the process of institutionalization into healthcare systems, driven in part by the development of biomedicine as a hegemonic paradigm and the asymmetric construction of scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, midwifery has survived around the globe in various forms. Midwifery practices –in their wide variety- are closely related to everyday life. Through their practice, midwives mobilize knowledge, beliefs, ritual and resources oriented towards sexual, reproductive and neonatal well-being. There are multiple ways of being a midwife. In practice, a midwife must overcome many barriers and adapt to cultural constructs that include institutional standards of care, state regulations, principles of self-care, and individual / collective performative construction. Both midwives and non-midwives have argued over the last century and a half over what is the “best way” to practice the profession. As tangible examples on contrasts of these negotiations, midwives have led initiatives to secure midwifery as a cultural practice, have institutionalized training programs and have situated midwifery as a political statement from the standpoint of human rights. Their discussions have sparked public debates that highlight the grey areas in which midwives work; in fact, many are forced to operate in secrecy and a-legality. These grey areas also highlight the risks involved in regulation and lack thereof, both for the autonomy of midwives and the safety of mothers and babies. These existing contractions and tensions within the midwifery conversation, reflect the same tension points between the autonomy of women over their bodies and the need for states to regulate healthcare. The enormous plasticity of midwifery as a cultural expression is a fertile entry point to analyse power relations with regard to bodies. We will explore how, through midwifery regulation, governments create guidelines in order to control women's bodies and their reproductive potential. We will also consider the use of the metaphor of a collective body in the construction of nations. The experiences of researchers studying midwifery included in this panel will enrich our anthropological understanding of the relationships between corporeality, nation-states, the production and valuation of knowledge (epistemic power relations), the right to health, and social inequalities. The current global pandemic has required the reorganization of health systems, while exposing differential access to obstetric health services and persistent inequities in accessing safe and appropriate health care in sexual and reproductive health. It is urgent to reflect upon the power relations exercised over women's bodies, as well as persistence growing disagreements between health professionals on the limits of scope of care and the boundaries of cultural appropriation within of midwifery practice. These inquiries acquire additional relevance, as sources and bridges of dialogue between different actors that could contribute to greater equity and justice in health care access.Regístrate
117Rearing the future. Heritage, innovation, and affection in the human-cattle relation.104Deborah Nadalnadal.deborah@gmail.comValentina BonifacioThe panel aims at exploring the many ways and contexts in which the relationship between humans and cattle has been experienced, transformed, and reconceptualized over time, and in particular over the last few decades. Humans and cattle, in fact, have been living together for about 10,000 years, establishing a relationship built not only on the exploitation of the animals’ bodies but also on their socio-political significance. From a historical perspective, an increase in the per-capita consumption of beef and poultry has been taken in many parts of the world as a clear index of wealth and development, and has been praised and encouraged by the media and the industry alike. At the same time, the growth of social movements and lifestyles based on a critique of meat consumption and animal exploitation, such as vegetarianism and veganism, is pointing in a completely opposite direction, encouraging society towards a progressive and consistent abandonment of traditional cattle rearing. Because of the enduring symbolic, historical, and economic importance of beef consumption, we believe that a deep analysis of the human-cattle relationship and its different configurations across time and space - in what, following anthropologist Anna Tsing, we could call «patchy Anthropocene» - can provide a better understanding of the explicit and implicit values that guide the present and future of our societies.Humans and cattle have been living together for about 10,000 years, establishing a relationship built not only on the exploitation of the animals’ bodies (for milk, meat, hide, bones, blood, dung, urine, strength, etc.) but also on their social, cultural, political, and religious significance to human communities. Since the Industrial Revolution - when tractors have replaced draft animals - and the expansion of intensive, «rational» cattle ranching, the human-cattle relationship has changed consistently in many societies around the world. Nowadays, unprecedented concerns about global warming, deforestation, inefficient and unsustainable use of natural resources, pollution, zoonotic diseases, poor animal welfare standards, and increasing human population are fostering an intense, and much urgent, debate on the future of cattle rearing. In some cases, it is a debate on the very existence of cattle. For instance, vegetarianism/veganism, food alternatives such as soya milk or lab-grown meat, and synthetic clothes could lead, at least in the Global North, to a progressive and consistent abandonment of traditional cattle rearing. At the same time, the relationship with cattle as «inter-speciated familiars», «companion species» or more simply «commodity» is still solid and in a constant process of transformation in many parts of the world. This panel aims at exploring how, across countries and societies, humans are imagining, building, or dismantling their future with cattle. In particular, we are interested in whether and how breeding agendas, practices, and standards are being redefined and reoriented towards new objectives – whatever they are - and a different human-cattle trajectory. Breeding should be understood in the largest sense possible, including, on the one hand, cross-breeding and local, national and international cattle trade, or, on the other hand, inbreeding, purebred breeding, and culling of undesirable animals. Both because of the growing interest of anthropology in the human-animal relationship and the urgent need of facing the many challenges of our time and our near future, it is fascinating to get a sense of the direction towards which cattle rearing is going. In particular, it is interesting to see whether and how innovation and heritage protection, as well as diversification and homogenization, will converge and result in a new, but old at the same time, idea of and relationship with cattle. We invite contributions from any subfield of anthropology, research method, theoretical background, or field site (including the virtual space) on any of the many settings where humans relate to cattle: industrial farming, extensive animal farming, cattle ranching, (subsistence) pastoralism, urban/backyard animal rearing, organic livestock farming, «fake beef» laboratories, etc. We also welcome contributions that can offer a historical perspective on today’s situation. We are interested in stimulating a debate on issues such as tangible and intangible heritage, multiple dimensions of knowledge, conservation, sustainability, growth, development, identity, cultural memory, cattle culture, resilience, creativity, resistance, conflict, negotiation, repulsion, attachment, love, kinship, and multidimensional health (at the human, animal, and environmental level).Regístrate
118Afro-Latin American heritages: experiences and challenges in dialogue [Intangible Cultural Heritage]105Milena Annecchiaricomilargenta@gmail.comDenise BrazThis panel proposes to reflect on recent processes of patrimonialization of spaces, memories, practices and knowledge of the Afro-descendant population in Latin America and the Caribbean. We invite to dialogue on the challenges, tensions, conflicts and emerging proposals around the heritage, both tangible and intangible, of the Afro-Latin American population at the present time. We are interested in relating and debating on the one hand the experiences that have been the object of specific public heritage policies, both nationally and transnationally, and on the other hand the critical epistemic and methodological proposals that address memories and black/African-descendant identities in relation to heritage. In particular, we consider the role of family memories and the leading role of women in the transmission and transformation of knowledge, practices and physical sites of black presence in the different Latin American territories, whose narratives often put in tension the hegemonic discourses regarding what is or is not considered as heritage from the state or transnational spheres, revealing memories and heritages that have been erased from the territories. At the same time, we are interested in thinking together about heritage as a cultural right, capable of intervening favorably in interethnic relations and in the fight against racism. The panel will be organized along three thematic topics: (a) Ethnographies of tangible and intangible heritage processes linked to physical sites, cultural practices and memories of Afro-descendant populations in Latin American and Caribbean territories; b) Family, community and/or women's narratives and memories in the production of knowledge on Afro-Latin American heritage. c) Academic discussions and theoretical-methodological proposals that address heritage as a space of conflict in intersection with the debates on racism and racialization in culture and heritage.This panel proposes to bring together diverse contributions within the framework of cultural heritage studies, afrodiasporic studies, studies of subalternized memories and studies of racialization processes in culture, among others. The main relevance of this roundtable lies in the attention paid to the relationship between afro heritage policies and the racial question in different Latin American and Caribbean contexts, an analytically and ethically significant crossroads that is gaining visibility in current debates. We are interested in discussing cases of heritage activations of slavery memory sites in recent times, taking into account the different dimensions of heritage (political, cultural, economic, scientific) and the articulations between different social actors and institutional scales (state agents; international organizations such as UNESCO; Afro-descendant organizations and communities; activists, intellectuals, scientists, etc.). According to this general framework, we invite you to discuss how heritage policies are combined with racial policies in the specific cases presented; how different versions of Afro-Latin American identities and memories represented in heritage repertoires are tensioned, diverge or converge; how heritage processes intervene (or not) in the issues of cultural rights and the fight against racism; what are the effects of heritage policies on the shaping of narratives about the past, culture, identities and social dynamics of the Afro-descendant population; what are the strategies that actors mobilize to characterize heritage and memory as a resource (political, economic, social, cultural); what is the role of family, community and/or women's narratives and memories in the production of knowledge about Afro-Latin American heritage. The objectives are therefore: a) To put in dialogue experiences, meanings and strategic uses of memory and culture present in the processes of patrimonialization, revealing and contrasting the strategies of visibilization of the Afro-Latin American presence and the political and cultural disputes at stake in each context and according to the different social actors; b) To promote critical knowledge about the Afro-Latin American heritage, relating the places of memory of slavery - physical sites - in connection with the cultural practices of the communities - cultural expressions - as well as their political and identity claims. c) To reflect on the role of family, community and women's memories in the production of knowledge about heritages, in a decolonial and situated perspective. We invite scholars from socio-anthropological and related disciplines to send us their proposals and thus promote this space for exchange and multi-localized debate.Regístrate
119Anthropological corpo/realities: contemporary debates on body and corporality106Alejandra Aguilar-Rosalejandraguilaros@gmail.comCarolina Romero, Mónica Luna, Luz Nereida Perez PradoThis panel addresses issues on contemporary anthropological debates on the body and corporality, and the relation of anthropology with other disciplines and geographical anthropological traditions in the discussions of the body. Debates on the body are geographically and thematically differentiated. Whilst in central Europe and north American anthropology have been around for various decades now, in Latin America, the debates have been only very recent, mainly related to sociology rather than to anthropology -in the works of Zandra Pedraza in Colombia, or the performance and corporality group of Silvia Citro in Argentina, for instance. Lately, also in Latin America, the dialogue of anthropology of the body with other fields such as art history, geography and archaeology for example, have proved very fruitful. However, although Latin American debates are deeply rooted in ethnography, theoretical discussions have been only fired up with the anthropology of the emotions, and the widest discussions on decoloniality (cf. Adrián Scribano in Argentina, Liuba Kogan in Perú, Gabriel Bourdin en México, among many others). The panel will welcome papers that wish to map debates, issues and themes on the body and corporality, marked by different traditions in anthropology, the engagement of anthropology with other disciplines, as well as the contextual meanings these debates arise.The theme of the body and cultural corporality(ies), have been historically a research theme for anthropology, from the beginning of its history as a discipline. From ethnographies now qualified as “classics” in university curriculums, and part of our professional training, to the way the body is culturally shaped, this theme has been central as a research subject within the discipline accordingly. Themes such as “primitive art”, cultural corporal practices, cultural representations of the body, to sophisticated concepts such as “embodiment” (Csordas), display how the body has been a key, albeit sometimes eluding, concept in anthropology. Even more, descriptions, theorizations, and methodological approaches have arrayed how anthropology regards other(ness), and informs both a field of interest in anthropology, as well as the kind of cultural meaning it has for researchers in their approaches to the body. Researchers with different methodologies, and distinctive concerns according to their anthropological traditions, have treated the body from a wide variety of subjects, developing a rich epistemological field, and thus, inviting us to identify it in terms of mapping out connections, identify questions and intersections, highlight concerns and point out voids among anthropological traditions, and their articulations with related fields. The panel will focus on discussions that assist with understanding how anthropology shapes a critical knowledge on the body, corporality(ies) and subjectivities, from a diverse array of horizons and approaches. We are interested in discussions with a variety of fields (history, theory of art, geography, sociology, decolonial critique, gender theory, archaeology, bioscience, medicine, politics, economy, ethnohistory), and questions on specific themes within religiosity, territory, migration, globalization, communication, gender, among others, in order to cater a space to understand the contemporary study of the body, and to weave a working network to fortify and enhance different methodologies and epistemological frames. We are particularly interested in shaping a map of specific traditions of anthropological thought (Latin American, African, eastern, central European, north American, etc), on the body, where we can compare questions and issues. Some of the questions relevant to this panel are: What are the implications of the questions we ask about the body? What are these questions within our anthropological traditions? How we engage corporality cross-culturally, and cross-fields? The objectives of the panel will be an endeavor to map out traditions and themes, and a search for tracing routes that allow these disciplinary intersections to flourish.Regístrate
120HIV and Medical Anthropology: critical, theoretical and applied contributions. [Commission of the Anthropology of Pandemics]107Rubén Muñozrubmuma@hotmail.comBavon MupendaThere is a diversity of approaches in Medical Anthropology to the study of the health, disease and illness, care and prevention process ranging from both new theories and old ones, that include structural violence, syndemia, and other existing types of theorical frameworks. Similarly, Medical Anthropology has made multiple contributions of an applied nature to understand and address the HIV pandemic from a sociocultural and political perspective. Although in the Global North, prevention, early detection, access and adherence to antiretroviral treatment have undergone important advances, this is not the situation in many contexts in the Global South, especially regarding the most vulnerable populations. Some of these populations are ethnic minorities, economic migrants and displaced people, women, people with disabilities and those who use drugs (injecting or not), men who have sex with men and gender diversity populations. Frequently, the vulnerability to HIV overlaps these populations, reflecting diverse forms of sex-gender, social class and ethnic-racial oppression. The objective of this panel is to generate a space for academic discussion on the results of anthropological research that questions the epidemiological and biomedical understanding and management of the pandemic focused on individualistic and/or culturalist perspectives based on lifestyles, rational actor and cultural over-determination of HIV etiology and inequity in care-seeking. Papers are invited to present results of anthropological research of a theoretical and/or applied nature, with an approach that problematizes the aforementioned assumptions, as well as highlighting the limitations and potential of Medical Anthropology to understand and address the HIV pandemic’s impact in the most vulnerable social groups.There is a diversity of approaches in Medical Anthropology to the study of the health, disease and illness, care and prevention process ranging from both new theories and old ones, that include structural violence, syndemia, and other existing types of theorical frameworks. Similarly, Medical Anthropology has made multiple contributions of an applied nature to understand and address the HIV pandemic from a sociocultural and political perspective. Although in the Global North, prevention, early detection, access and adherence to antiretroviral treatment have undergone important advances, this is not the situation in many contexts in the Global South, especially regarding the most vulnerable populations. Some of these populations are ethnic minorities, economic migrants and displaced people, women, people with disabilities and those who use drugs (injecting or not), as well as men who have sex with men and gender diversity populations. Frequently, the vulnerability to HIV overlaps between these populations, reflecting diverse forms of sex-gender, social class and ethnic-racial oppression. The objective of this panel is to generate a space for academic discussion on the results of anthropological research that questions the epidemiological and biomedical understanding and management of the pandemic focused on individualistic and/or culturalist perspectives based on lifestyles, rational actor and cultural over-determination of HIV etiology and inequity in care-seeking. Papers are invited to present results of anthropological research of a theoretical and/or applied nature, with an approach that problematizes the aforementioned assumptions, as well as highlighting the limitations and potential of Medical Anthropology to understand and address the HIV pandemic’s impact in the most vulnerable social groups.Regístrate
121Peopling medical practices: ethnography, networks and interconnectedness108Lucas Riboli Riboli Besenmisterbesen@gmail.comLarissa Costa Duarte, Glaucia MaricatoDuring the COVID-19 crisis, it became even more undeniable that health—in its many facets—is not something that can be fixed or managed by physicians alone. Health is the result of a collective effort. In a moment such as this one, in which science and media are discussing the numbers of infections and deaths in millions and thousands respectively, it is easy to lose track of who is at the center of any medical practice: actual people. In this scenario, it is more important than ever to turn to the tools and resources that our disciplines have provided us with: the ability to connect, to listen, and to collaborate across actors and areas. This is not, of course, a new project or a new agenda for Anthropology—we have been pushing for more people-centered medical practices for years. But from this unimaginable collective trauma that we are experiencing, we strongly believe that deep transformations in the way that medical practices are performed will follow—hopefully with more space to the participation of patients, activists, and alternative networks. With that in mind, we are interested in understanding how diagnosis, treatment and cure are produced/enacted and mobilized within various and transnational ethnographic fieldworks. This panel calls for papers looking into the different ethnographic fields in which health is pursued: patient networks, doctor-patient relationships, hospitals, clinics, telemedicine, digital communities, scientific development. We invite people interested in discussing diagnosis, treatment and cure criteria (and surrounding negotiations and controversies), perceived success, failures and complexities of health from an anthropological and ethnological perspective. We are especially interested in getting to know researches that draw on feminist, queer, transnational, and Indigenous scholarship.During the COVID-19 crisis, it became even more undeniable that health—in its many facets—is not something that can be fixed or managed by physicians alone. Health is the result of a collective effort. In a moment such as this one, in which science and media are discussing the number of infections and deaths in millions and thousands respectively, it is easy to lose track of who is at the center of any medical practice: actual people. In this scenario, it is more important than ever to turn to the tools and resources that our disciplines have provided us with: the ability to connect, to listen, and to collaborate across actors and areas. This is not, of course, a new project or a new agenda for Anthropology: we have been pushing for more people-centered medical practices for years. But from this unimaginable collective trauma that we are experiencing, we strongly believe that deep transformations in the way that medical practices are performed will follow—hopefully with more space to the participation of patients, activists, and alternative networks. With that in mind, we are interested in understanding how diagnosis, treatment and cure are produced/enacted and mobilized within various contexts and transnational fieldworks. Our intention for this panel is to contribute and communicate directly with the theoretical traditions of Medical Anthropology, Science and Technology Studies, Postcolonial Studies, and Feminist Studies of Science and Medicine. We are interested in looking into the past and the present of medical practices, and to help imagine and envision possible futures for our disciplines, and for more people-centered medical practices. As said by Joao Biehl and Adriana Petryna (2014): “A more holistic understanding of health is indeed needed and diverse disciplines (including anthropology) must be engaged as we seek to understand the complexities of the context and content of health interventions as well as the trials and errors of real people in specific circumstances trying to figure out what works for them. (…) Moreover, a people-centered science of care delivery cannot fully flourish without it being grounded in a respect for human rights and structures of accountability and government obligation.” This panel calls for papers looking into the different ethnographic fields in which health is pursued: patient networks, doctor-patient relationships, hospitals, clinics, telemedicine, digital communities, scientific development. We invite people interested in discussing diagnosis, treatment and cure criteria (and surrounding negotiations and controversies), perceived success, failures and complexities of health from an anthropological and ethnological perspective. We are especially interested in getting to know researches that draw on feminist, queer, transnational, and Indigenous scholarship. This panel welcomes contributions focused on, but not limited to, the following topics: expertise negotiated along diagnosing processes; configurations of diagnosis and cure criteria; local and global effects of diagnosis and cure criteria in people’s lives; reflections on the role of ethnographic in medical studies and practices; global health and health priority setting; transnational patient networks and the use of digital communities; methodological adjustments and innovations.Regístrate
122Indigenous knowledge and practices in response to emerging and re-emerging diseases [Commission on the Anthropology of Pandemics]109Sergio Paredes-Solíssrgprds@gmail.comIván Sarmiento CombarizaThe objective of this panel is to explore the knowledge and practices that indigenous peoples or traditional medicine users and practitioners, have applied to address emerging and re-emerging diseases. In the late 20th and early 21st century, humanity has experienced the emergence of new infectious diseases and the re-emergence of other infectious and non-infectious diseases whose incidence has risen sharply after an earlier decline. The global burden of these diseases is unequally distributed, and vulnerable populations tend to suffer more. Two factors have an important role in the effect that these diseases cause in a social group: the resilience of the social group and the responsiveness of Western health systems. Most research has documented the successes and failures of Western biomedicine in addressing these health problems. In contrast, the perspectives of populations with little or no access to government health services, who are the main users of traditional medicine, have been systematically ignored. This panel would like to identify interaction points between traditional and Western medicine. We propose to adopt a dialogical perspective which will allow us to see emerging and re-emerging diseases form the perspectives of both traditional groups and Western medicine. Thus, it will enrich the debate on anthropology's role in the face of significant health challenges, such as a pandemic. It is of particular interest to disseminate the actions carried out by indigenous peoples who, thanks to traditional medicine, have survived the recent pandemic. Listening to the multiple contributions that traditional groups can make to improve health is an essential step in establishing an intercultural dialogue with Western medicine. We hope that this dialogue will contribute to enrich the cultural heritage and increase global connections to promote health worldwide.The objective of this panel is to explore the knowledge and practices that indigenous peoples, or traditional medicine users and practitioners, have applied to address emerging and re-emerging diseases. In the late 20th and early 21st century, humanity has experienced the emergence of new infectious diseases and the re-emergence of other infectious and non-infectious diseases whose incidence has risen sharply after an earlier decline. Ebola virus disease (EVD), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), a strain of avian influenza (AH5N1), Zika virus, Chikungunya virus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses, SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, are examples of emerging infectious diseases. Examples of re-emerging infectious diseases are dengue fever, pulmonary tuberculosis and cholera. And re-emerging non-infectious diseases include diabetes mellitus, systemic arterial hypertension and nutritional disorders such as overweight, obesity and malnutrition. The global burden of emerging and re-emerging diseases is unequally distributed, and vulnerable populations tend to suffer more in terms of human lives, health outcomes and economic losses. Two factors have an important role in the effect that emerging and re-emerging diseases cause in a social group: the resilience of the social group and the responsiveness of Western health systems to prevent or treat the diseases. Most research has documented the successes and failures of Western biomedicine in addressing these health problems. In contrast, the perspectives of populations with little or no access to government health services, mainly users of traditional medicine, have been systematically ignored although anthropological studies have focused on its scope and significance, as it comprises a rich body of knowledge, practices, resources and practitioners rooted in cultural traditions. Current traditional knowledges and practices are the expression of evolving worldviews and the product of centuries of history and has been essential to ensure the health and the survival of many social groups worldwide. Therefore, there is a need to better understand the contribution that traditional medicine could make to alleviate the burden of emerging and re-emerging diseases. These contributions could be applicable among local groups or even among society at large. We want to identify meeting points between traditional and Western medicine, proposing to adopt a dialogical perspective which will allow us to see emerging and re-emerging diseases form the perspectives of both traditional groups and Western medicine. The panel’s outcomes will be relevant to promote better care in institutional settings, for example, by indicating ideas of how to incorporate the cultural domain into the medical practice or by suggesting further scenarios of collaboration. In addition, it will enrich the debate on anthropology's challenges in the face of significant health challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. It is of particular interest to disseminate the actions carried out by indigenous peoples who, thanks to traditional medicine, have survived the recent pandemic, as an essential step in establishing an intercultural dialogue with Western medicine. We hope that this dialogue will contribute to enrich the cultural heritage and increase global connections to promote health in a possible world.Regístrate
124Death, bodies, funerals and bereavement in times of COVID-19 pandemic [Anthropology of pandemics]110Ana Perinic Lewisaperinic@gmail.comPetra Rajić Šikanjić, Clara SaraivaEpidemics and pandemics as global crises transform social life and challenge people to confront difficult choices. Preventive and protective measures used in pandemics and epidemics to reduce the spread of the disease significantly influence everyday life. COVID-19 emerged in December 2019and one of the most distressing aspects of the pandemic is enforceable physical distancing from dying people, whether at home or in institutions. This includes guidelines regarding handling bodies, organizing funerals, and burials affected dying, death, and mourning. Geography, social inequity, ethnicity, and religion shape the way people reconcile their obligations to the dead with the constraints placed on them. Therefore, there were numerous and significant challenges in the process of death, dealing with death and bereavement during epidemics and pandemics.Epidemics and pandemics as global crises, transform social life and challenge people to confront difficult choices. COVID-19 emerged in December 2019. Due to its rapid spread to many countries around the world, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic on March 11 2020. One year later, in 2021, the pandemic is still here, and despite the discovery of the vaccine, is not abating. Since COVID-19 is highly contagious, countries have implemented public health measures to limit contact with infectious individuals and to reduce the spread of the disease. One of the most distressing aspects of the pandemic is enforceable physical distancing from dying people, whether at home or in institutions. Guidelines regarding handling bodies, organizing funerals, and burials affected dying, death, and mourning. Regardless of country or culture, the ritual of holding a funeral for the deceased has been changed and in some countries, the option to hold a funeral has been revoked. Lockdowns and restrictions, that prohibited larger gatherings and proposed social distancing, altered the way that people grieve, commemorate, and remember their dead. Geography, social inequity, ethnicity, and religion shape the way people reconcile their obligations to the dead with the constraints placed on them. Mourners responded differently, some adapted to the new rules by modifying the grieving process and inventing new practices (creating new rituals, innovative solutions, and alternative forms of memorialization), while others tried to resist or found forms of opposition to changed funeral practices and subversion of given regulations. The lack of known rituals, traditions, and grieving practices caused feelings of insecurity and even guilt among the bereaved. The panel we propose seeks to create a platform for sharing results of interdisciplinary research on the impact of 21st-century epidemics on dying and death practices in different regions of the world. The panel welcomes research that highlights the practices and innovative coping strategies developed during epidemics and pandemics.Regístrate
125Anthropologies of Care and politics of knowledge: situating care111Helena Fietzhelenafietz@gmail.comCintia Engel, Eliza WilliamsonResearch on care practices is not exactly a novelty in Anthropology. In the past few years, however, we have witnessed the emergence of an “anthropology of care” with scholars focusing on different practices and relations of care such as community networks of care, family care, politics and infrastructures of care. The universe of research has been equally broad, with work on disability, childhood, aging, urbanity, farming, and the environment, dialoguing with several theoretical approaches and equally diverse subjects. Perhaps we could speak of anthropologies of care, plural? Doing research from and within Latin America, we have noted that debates over what care is, how we might engage with it, and how to transform it address dilemmas that at times bear similarities to debates on care in other regions of the world and at other times are detached from them, marking the particularities of Latin American scholarship on care. Following Puig de la Bellacasa’s (2017) work, we propose that in addition to being attentive to the diversity of meanings and theories, it is crucial to bring to the text elements such as where researchers are speaking from, how they are situated within this “anthropology of care,” and which hierarchy of dialogues mark the debate. Thus, in conversation with feminist scholars who call us to think about care on “its own terms” (Mol, 2008; Pols, 2015), we invite researchers to present a situated reflection on internal dynamics of care that also dialogues with the dynamics of the geopolitics of knowledge informed by where from and to whom we write. In this way, we hope to gather papers that converse with the following provocation: how can dialogues and comparisons between ethnographic research conducted in distinct contexts, with different approaches and from diverse localities, transform the way we think the anthropology(ies) of care?As researchers working with care in Brazil and close dialogue with theories emerging from the so-called “Global North,” we are constantly challenged to engage in conversations about how well such theories “fit” the contexts in which we are doing fieldwork. One concern starts with the very translation of the term “care” to its Portuguese equivalent, cuidado. At the same time, our personal and academic trajectories also situate us in paths that are constantly interchanging between what has been commonly understood as the “global north” and the “global south.” Particularly as we work with Science and Technology Studies theories of care (Mol, 2008; Pols, 2015; Murphy, 2015; Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017) and an “Anthropology of Care” mainly based primarily on the work of U.S.-based scholars. The goal of this open panel is to flip this conversation and instead of asking how certain theories “fit” certain context, engage in debates as to how situated work from various regions and in dialogue with different theoretical approaches can help us to further complexify the emergent field of Anthropology(ies) of Care. We aim to engage in discussions about how to establish creative dialogues with care theories in all their multiplicity, mapping how they are being done by anthropologists in different countries researching a variety of topics, and moreover, what can we produce from these encounters. This open panel aims to make a two-fold contribution to anthropological knowledge: first, it will deepen and expand conversations about care through the exchange and problematization of different researchers’ experiences, quandaries, and solutions to the often complex dialogue between ethnographic data and “theory.” Second, it will provide a space for researchers to question these determinations and discuss how to produce meaningful conversations that involve policymakers, care workers, and those who receive care. It is common for anthropologists working with care to be called to engage in public debates about how to improve care relations and policies. However, similar to care theories, care policies are often based on a few countries’ experiences and evaluations of what “good care” is. We hope for this panel to be a space where scholars who have been concerned about these issues can meet, engage in productive exchanges, and start a network of anthropologists to further develop the field of anthropology(ies) of care in different countries. Regístrate
126Anthropology about first nations at Southeastern of Mexico. Paths traced by interculturality112Amelia Escobar Potencianoamelia.escobar@uiet.edu.mxVictoria Raquel Rojas Lozano, Felipe Galán López, Massimo De GiussepeStudies about native people at Mexico’s Southeastern region (Tabasco, Chiapas, Campeche, Yucatán, Quintana Roo and South of Veracruz) have been varied and unequal during last century, that considering the extensive quantity of researching about Chiapas or Yucatan compared with states as Tabasco and Campeche which have not been sufficiently addressed by anthropology. In the specific case of Tabasco there are still historical, ethnographic and linguistic gaps, among some reasons, for having been considered as a modern, progressive and oil entity; the same as Campeche, which has studies in archeology, but little work in other areas related to anthropology. Like the rest of the states in this region, both entities have a very important and considerable indigenous population, most of them faced integrationist policies with various effects, which currently are being studied. At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, in a new dynamic crossed by the intercultural educational approach and the identity policies established by new state institutions, the situation of native peoples is different; at one hand, due to the effect of state policies, and by the other hand, due to social mobilizations, ethnic identity struggles and emerging issues such as migration, racism, among others. In this table, we propose to know, analyze and discuss researching about native people in Tabasco, Chiapas, Campeche, Yucatán, Quintana Roo and the south of Veracruz, from an anthropology crossed by interculturality which integrate linguistic, ethnographic, historical, educational, gender and cultural aspects.In the last fifteen years, some research works were carried out in direct relation with Tabasco anthropology even when there is no specialized school with this focus in the state as neighboring or nearby states have such as Veracruz, Chiapas and Yucatan. Social dynamics in different cultural regions and their municipalities as well as thrust of different public institutions like Universidad Juarez Autonoma de Tabasco (UJAT), Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR) and particularly Universidad Intercultural del Estado de Tabasco (UIET) in addition to the increase of works by researchers from other universities have allowed a new perspective about Tabasco anthropology which is intended to be diffused and discussed at IUAES Congress 2021. According the approach proposed by Ruz (2014:7) “Basta lanzar una mirada sobre el paisaje de las investigaciones en ciencias sociales y humanidades en México para percatarse de que los estudiosos muestran predilección por determinadas comarcas. Tabasco no se encuentra ciertamente en ellas; apenas dos o tres de sus regiones han recibido alguna mención”. For this reason we considered it is necessary to discuss and review recent researching from anthropology and its relationship with others fields of knowledge such as history, linguistic and gender studies carried out in and from Tabasco throw a cross-cultural perspective. In this sense, the aims of this table is to: 1. Make visible native people, language and culture in this region through the dissemination of their history, ethnolinguistic characteristics as well as their political, economic and sociocultural reconfiguration. 2. Learn about researching carried out in the last years in Tabasco anthropology about native people such as Ore’, Ch’ol, Yokot’an, Tzotzil, Ayapanec, Nahua, Tzeltal, Zapotec and Maya in order to compensate the unequal generation of knowledge during the twentieth Century. 3. Identify the position that interculturality and interdisciplinary have occupied in the development of the current Tabasco anthropology. 4. Reflect about the role of Tabasco anthropology in the production of knowledge related to native people at the Mexican Southeast. 5. Identify challenges and risks that Tabasco anthropology has in order to make visible old, current and emerging problems around native people in this area. The academic relevance of this table is related to the discussion and analysis of different points of view focus on anthropology and interculturality based on the fact that in last decades progressive, modern and castilianizing policies were promoted and they provoked reactions in the way that native people ethnically self-ascribe in Tabasco. Particularly among Ch’oles who were historically forgotten and who have led identity mobilization in this area, which intersects situated and critical interculturality.Regístrate
127Environmental risk and patrimony: Actors, networks, and knowledge articulating material objects and notions of risk113Analiese Richardanaliese.richard@gmail.comAnna Spivak L'HosteIn Science and Technology Studies (STS), theorization of the social construction of risk has traditionally been dominated by debates around lay/expert controversies. In recent years, however, anthropologists and historians have sought to break open these debates by examining how concrete objects of risk are constituted and how the particular affordances of these objects conjure different sorts of publics and forms of participation. This work seeks to understand how different actors participate in constructing objects and notions of risk, how they elaborate sociotechnical networks and communities of people affected by particular forms of risk, and what different kinds of knowledge are formulated and marshalled in these processes. The papers in this panel examine how debates around the social construction of environmental risks intersect with patrimonial objects, that is, material entities that embody cultural, ecological, and political values and through which the pasts and futures of specific groups are knit together. In recent decades, the value of objects as diverse as landscapes, genes, and nuclear power plants has been articulated through discourses of patrimony as a means of constructing political projects aimed at protecting these objects—and by extension the human actors, networks, and knowledges associated with them--from risk. Following Orsini (2020), this panel examines how “invisible” forms of risk are incarnated in “material signs,” and the development of senses, affects, instruments, and practices aimed at facilitating their detection. We also seek to understand the processes of abstraction and translation through which these “signs” become interpretable as indicators of danger, and the sources of uncertainty and controversy that arise. Finally, we wish to place these processes and the patrimonial objects on which they work in historical perspective, examining the changes over time in the ways these risks are objectified, embodied, represented, and interpreted.More than thirty years have passed since sociologists Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens debuted their theories of “risk society,” which sought to explain how modern societies socially distribute the negative effects of productive processes (in the form of contamination, human health effects, habitat loss, and climate change, to name a few). Alongside (and often interacting with) natural hazards, a host of technological hazards has emerged and accelerated since the post-War period. While the profits of these productive processes are privatized, the risks they imply are socialized, and often impinge on common goods. At the same time, competing knowledge claims and erosion of trust in institutions tasked with calculating risks and developing and implementing protective measures has led to increased uncertainty. The papers in this panel examine how debates around the social construction of environmental risks intersect with patrimonial objects, that is, material entities that embody cultural, ecological, and political values and through which the pasts and futures of specific groups are knit together. In recent decades, the value of objects as diverse as landscapes, genes, and nuclear power plants has been articulated through discourses of patrimony as a means of constructing political projects aimed at protecting these objects—and by extension the human actors, networks, and knowledges associated with them--from risk. Labeling an object-at-risk as patrimony situates it as a common good, the product of historical processes but also itself productive of cultural and political identities. In Science and Technology Studies (STS), theorization of the social construction of risk has traditionally been dominated by debates around lay/expert controversies. In recent years, however, anthropologists and historians have sought to break open these debates by examining how concrete objects of risk are constituted and how the particular affordances of these objects conjure different sorts of publics and forms of participation (Richard, 2012; Spivak y Hubert, 2016; Spivak, 2004). This work seeks to understand how different actors participate in constructing objects and notions of risk, how they elaborate sociotechnical networks and communities of people affected by particular forms of risk, and what different kinds of knowledge are formulated and marshalled in these processes. Following Orsini (2020), in this panel we are interested in examining how “invisible” forms of risk are incarnated in “material signs,” and the development of senses, affects, instruments, and practices aimed at facilitating their detection. We also seek to understand the processes of abstraction and translation through which these “signs” become interpretable as indicators of danger, and the sources of uncertainty and controversy that arise. Finally, we wish to place these processes and the patrimonial objects on which they work in historical perspective, examining the changes over time in the ways these risks are objectified, embodied, represented, and interpreted.Regístrate
128Re-forming of governance against pandemics. Emerging needs among vulnerable groups [Commission on the Anthropology of Pandemics]114Maria Guadalupe Ramirez-Rojasamairanai@gmail.comCarlos Alberto Agudelo Calderón2020 was a year that in particular showed the world how a pandemic is capable of changing people's social, political, economic and health dynamics. Not only did health systems lead to crises, but also other state-level structures have been forced to the limit. The current historical moment in which multiple pandemics coexist, both infectious and non-infectious - and where it can be added that the latent opportunism of others is present -requires analyzing and discussing the processes involved in decision-making and efforts to solve the needs and problems of the population, as well as reflecting on the role that governance and leadership plays in mobilizing resources and actors. On the political stage, these challenges have highlighted the potential need to reformulate public policy management models, rethinking the co-responsibilities of the State and its citizens, and the spaces in decision-making and the level of collaboration and participation of the various social actors. All this can only be done if those aspects of governance and governability that have favored mitigation and resilience measures are studied both in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic as well as others (for example, obesity, HIV / AIDS, chronic diseases).During the last five decades, threats capable of disrupting human activity and even affecting the balance of ecosystems have prevailed, as a result of various viruses, parasites and bacteria, which have managed to affect populations endemically. The ways of life of the various harmful agents present in the environment and in people's diet have led to an increase in diseases of a non-infectious nature such as: obesity, depression, stress, anxiety, hypertension, cancer, diabetes, only in the middle of the last century. Health practices have been linked to the social representations of what these conditions mean for the population. Thus, not only inequalities and social determinants play a preponderant role, but the lifestyles which explain the processes of health, disease and care. These pandemics, of an infectious and non-infectious nature, have not only affected the individual and family spheres, but have also impacted communities, requiring the interaction of actors from different sectors in decision-making, either through the articulation of formal or informal resources within the political sphere, where the stakeholders themselves confer a meaning on each of them, thus modifying the rules of the game in the practice of governance and governability. The collaboration between the different actors in favor of the common welfare in order to solve not only the health care needs, but also other problems derived from various pandemics in recent times, have led to the integration of policies and strategies, not only from the State perspective, but also in conjunction with the participation of the citizenry and non-governmental organizations. Our panel aims to make visible those practices that contribute to good governance and how they can interact with each other to promote a public value of common interest. This panel proposes to discuss the emerging needs derived from the COVID-19 pandemic as well of its interaction with other pandemics and the responses that the population has carried out in conjunction with additional stakeholders from the state spheres, the private sector, academia and non-governmental organizations in order to define public policies to improve health conditions and quality of life. We consider it important to include in the discussion the challenges faced by those segments of the population defined as vulnerable, such as indigenous peoples, women, the elderly, or others that were at risk or at a greater disadvantage prior to the pandemic situation, and that in the event of a health emergency (considering the crisis and damages derived from it) would have a greater situation of risk and vulnerability. We propose to encourage a debate on the approaches that consider how the interactions between the different political stakeholders are interwoven in the exercise of governance, descriptions that from the anthropological and social perspective propose models or resources that promote collaboration, discussion and synergies between the different sectors that integrate society, including how to jointly confront the threats of the different pandemics and their derived collateral effects. We encourage experts to provide data and information of studies that reflect best practices that allow good governance to be exemplified, as well as descriptions of governance in the face of the recent health challenges triggered by the different pandemics. It is also in our interest to show that the exercise of governance currently faces and the interaction it has with people's lives at the local, national, regional or international levels, as well as at different levels of structures and governmental entities.Regístrate
129Challenges in time of the pandemic: The role of water in communities [Commission on the Anthropology of Pandemics]115Francisco Antonio Ramírez-Rojasf.ramirez_arq@gmail.comPatrícia dos Santos PinheiroPanel description: The lack of water and basic sanitation, along with the lack of many other services in rural and remote communities in countries around the world, is part of a systemic debt that in turn becomes part of the social determinants of the health. During the recent COVID-19 pandemic we have seen how many health conditions as well as social inequalities are exacerbated. At a time when hygiene is required to be able to confront the pandemic, scarcity or lack of water together with inadequate sanitation systems are becoming critical. Thus the impact of how this affects the lives of millions of people during the pandemic is something that must be discussed, from multidisciplinary and multicultural approaches to better understand it.Access to water for rural and remote communities in countries around the world has historically undergone adversity, conflict as well as the systematic devaluation of traditional water management practices. Although the urban or "modern" approach brings a certain conception of development, it is not always sufficiently inclusive, desirable or consistent with the reality of different population groups, causing experiences of exposure to environmental vulnerabilities. There are several social and cultural practices related to waterways. In this way, contamination, lack of sanitation, industrial extractivist operations, hoarding and socio-environmental conflicts result in the loss of important cultural expressions, which have altered the ways life and limited collective uses of water. Over time, the problematization of this process has allowed new theoretical and methodological reflections on this traditional knowledge and practices that provide different epistemic and ontological possibilities. In addition to satisfying basic needs, water also plays a role of social production and reproduction which are symbolic of communal ways of life that combine the common and private use of the territories. Sociohistorical factors related to conflicts in the use and management of water have been determining factors in the health of these groups. Currently, the progress of the study of diseases related to water allows us to see the incidence of diseases unknown before, emerging and persistent pollutants, microplastics, to which we must also add the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, the vulnerability scenario includes the lack of basic sanitation, the intensive extraction of groundwater, water scarcity, lack of access to institutional health services, as well as the advance of agribusiness, and the presence of the mining, timber and processing industries in their territories. The objective of this panel, is on one hand, to discuss the role of water in the context of social inequalities aggravated by the pandemic, based on ethnographic approaches, while addressing prevention, containment and care actions that have been produced as responses to the pandemic by various social groups, and, on the other hand, the presence or absence of public health and sanitation policies and their effects. The panel will discuss topics that include experiences, systematization and research of local practices of water use and management expected in situations of scarcity, pollution and conflicts based on anthropological and social science contributions, as well as those arising from biological and health or environmental sciences.Regístrate
130Women, new ways of reproduction and care in an interconnected world.116Sandra Fernándezsand76.fg@gmail.com Zsuzsa BerendNew ways of thinking about reproduction and living, facing and / or planning motherhood are inseparable from both the globalized and local contexts in which they occur, and the discourses and ideas that create their meaning. Assisted Reproductive Technologies, the international legislation on Human Rights – specifically health and reproductive rights – and the contrast between different national legislations – both in family and economics – offer a complex social scene for the formation of kinship ties that moves away from traditional models. Women acquire a predominant role by unfolding their reproductive capacities in various ways that may or may not involve reproductive technologies and medical or other intermediaries in the constitution of distinctive family conformations. This panel is specifically focused on these constructions – about women and their capacities – and the different ways those can be actualized.Since the 1980s, anthropological kinship studies have considered different historical contexts and documented varied household arrangements – e.g. the biblical account of Sarah and Abraham or the use of concubines in feudal China to bear children for the first wives– in order to dispute ethnocentric kinship-model understandings such as the nuclear family model. Nowadays, this nuclear model has also been challenged by both the expansion of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and the emergence of new family formations. Furthermore, the quick development of new visions on kinship/relatedness has led to a re-articulation and re-signification of the classic processes of relationship, based now on the new techno-economic possibilities/landscape and the transformative social changes at global scale which favour the emergence of other forms of family, such as same-sex parenting or the ones based on national and transnational surrogacy. Simultaneously, structural conditions force many women to migrate and support their children from a distance while dedicating themselves to care for children/adults in more developed countries, constituting what is called the formation of transnational families and transnational motherhood. Thus, new ways of understanding reproduction and living, facing and / or planning motherhood are inseparable from both the globalized contexts in which they occur, and the discourses and ideas that create their meaning. Ragoné´s early research on surrogacy dissociated motherhood into three maternal figures, namely the biological mother, the gestational or substitute mother, and the social mother. Nowadays, these categories do not fit properly with some empirical finding about surrogates’ self-identities but even so, motherhood could be a useful and inclusive concept to accommodate different women´s positions related to reproductive and care processes. Therefore, with new and developing technologies, new ways of family creation, as well as new arrangements due to migratory patters, new categories of "motherhood" emerge. Thereby, this panel is open to theoretical and ethnographic-based proposals that problematize “motherhood” at the intersection of local and global dimensions in an interconnected world, providing complex and relational visions of current ways of mothering and also alternative possibilities. Some of the possible topics would include: o Ethnographic or empirically-based research on different motherhood models: international adoption, surrogacy, FIV, classic way or even not-mother al all. o Discourse analysis of women who have participated in ART practices in different positions: egg donators, embryo adopters, surrogates, intentional mothers and so on. o Political economy of maternal feelings. o Analysis of different women’s collectives’ understandings of motherhood. o Factors influencing women’s decisions to become egg donors, surrogates, or social mothers. o Legal aspects related to specific contexts of motherhood and their relevance for the women who participate in them. o Alternative ways of understanding and practicing motherhoodRegístrate
131Heritage Hybridity in Postcolonial Asian Cities: Global Crossroads of Culture and Tourism117Marisa C. Gasparmcgaspar@socius.iseg.ulisboa.ptRaan-Hann TanThis panel aims to explore the idea of heritage as a way that notions of the past are being transformed by a globalised economic and cultural system. In this sense, heritage may be about reworking meanings of the past as the cultural, social, and political needs of the present change and develop; or it may be about challenging the ways in which groups and communities are perceived or identified in the present; or heritage celebration and safeguarding may be a consequence of an emerging cultural tourism market. In this sense, we invite to a discussion on the production, sustainability, transmission, preservation and contestation of cultural heritage in Asian postcolonial urban contexts related to institutionalized processes of remembering and forgetting, and its wider implications in terms of social relations and power. We also expect to receive paper proposals that look at how the members of local communities engage with heritage related tourism practices, and how a shared heritage makes them believe in not just a past but also a present and future in common.Asian cities situated in the crossroad of global maritime routes have a long history of cultural hybridity and cosmopolitanism. Even though colonial port cities like Macao, Melaka, Batavia, Rangoon, Ayutthaya were profoundly heterogeneous societies, in the postcolonial era, Asian rulers had the idea that homogeneity was critical to national stability, and thus, in certain countries, assimilation policies were implemented, and ethnic nationalism was promoted by their governments. Despite that, these cities have being characterized by their openness to global interconnections, diversity and cross-cultural exchange, and continue to question such homogenizing tendencies of today’s nation-states. In contemporary Asia, cultural heritage, be it tangible or intangible, has become an important area of tourism, culture commoditization and economic development. With this in mind, stakeholders have been developing initiatives to revive or celebrate the cosmopolitan past of their regions; however, in each postcolonial city, the complexities at work to shaping collective memory, identity and heritage are complex. The complexity of cultural policy and identity issues that can surround heritage, and the way heritage turns out to be the product of wider economic and ideological dynamics, is of greater importance in the understanding of communities’ social organization, cultural hybridization, creole legacies endurance, cultural survival and identity resilience. In this panel we are interested in reflecting upon processes of tangible and intangible heritage construction and production, and its interpretation and representation in postcolonial Asian urban contexts. We seek to discuss on how hybrid heritage is contested by different groups in society and their ability to use their position to promote a particular aspect of their culture for their own advantage or for the purpose of tourism. In this regard we propose a rethinking of tourism and its intricate connection with different types of power, by focusing on the ways cultural heritage is used in the creation of ties that bind, boundaries that exclude and in its role in processes of empowerment, transgression, resistance and reproduction strategies of communities. This panel seeks paper proposals based on interdisciplinary ethnographic research on cultural heritage in postcolonial Asian cities mainly in relation to (but not excluded): - processes of cultural hybridity, miscegenation, creolization, etc.; - control over heritage production by nation-states and local government agencies, elites, businesses, the media, international agencies, etc.; - transnational development of heritage policies; - empowerment, transgression and resistance practices; - attachment to heritage values, meanings and social uses; - cultural tourism promotion and heritage consumption; - objectification of ‘national’ or ‘ethnic’ identities; - official discourses and the trajectories of history and the colonial past; - ethnic, cultural and spatial ‘cleansing’.Regístrate
132Expressive Arts, Difference and Subalternity in the Global South118Mauricio Acuñajacuna@princeton.eduBernardo Fonseca MachadoTranslocal flows of expressive arts have been present in many communities and nations at various moments in history. From cultural festivals in the 1950s to acting techniques in the 1980s, professionals traveled between nations translating repertoires through several contexts. When considering the Global South, the transit of people and practices has affected the way ideas and expressive arts circulate in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The purpose of this panel is to emphasize the various flows of artistic forms in the Global South and its articulation with immigrant communities in Europe and the United States. For example, recent scholarly work has discussed the symbolic dislocations of capoeira practitioners between Brazil, the United States and Europe, or the everyday life of African musicians in China, as well as the circulation of Asian visual arts in Angola, and many more. The study of artistic practices highlights techniques that impact bodies in unequal positions of power and increases our understanding of how art, and its different forms, relates with subaltern positions. We encourage disciplinary transgressions between anthropology, cultural studies, literature, history, and others. We also welcome scholars working with intersectional perspectives to think about the route of translocal arts between many locations. Following the debates in the IUAES, we will invite participants to develop a final version of their talks as articles to be published in a dossier.This panel proposes interdisciplinary collaborations between anthropology and other fields of study, particularly cultural studies, history, and literature, emphasizing the organizers' experience between Brazil and the United States. Considering the interplay between national and transnational hierarchies of power in the Global South (Comaroff, 2012, Mbembe, 2001) and following the guidelines of the IUAES on global interconnections in a possible world, we propose to expand comparative reflections on the study of expressive arts to multiple territories. Departing from our experience with the First World Festival of Negro Arts in Senegal and the transits of theatrical shows, techniques and peoples across the US and Brazil, we argue for the importance of translocal flows of expressive arts to communities and nations at various moments in history (Acuña 2021; Machado 2020). When considering the emergence of the Global South as a concept to describe inequalities and powers hierarchies in the twentieth-first century, we also invite collaboration to reflect on the role of art in such relations during the twentieth century in the Americas, Africa and Asia. Additionally, the panel emphasizes the various flows of artistic forms in the Global South in articulation with immigrant communities in Europe and the United States. Such perspective aims to shed light over dislocations of cultural producers such as African percussionists in China, the circulation of Chinese visual arts in Angola, the production and reception of literary experiments in indigenous literature, and so on. We emphasize the importance of intersectional perspectives considering social markers such as origin, color, race, gender, class, generation, and sexuality in individuals' displacement experience (Crenshaw 1991; Collins and Bilge 2016). Some of the questions the panel will address are: How can nations be analyzed through aesthetics? How artistic techniques impact people’s practices and trajectories in different locations? On what conditions is art understood as a universal discourse? In which situations is it taken as a local phenomenon? How does this interaction between the universal and the local takes place? What is local and universal when analyzed in and from the Global South? The study of artistic practices offers access to procedures that impact bodies in unequal positions of power and contexts and increases our understanding of how expressive arts produce difference and relate to subaltern positions (Spivak, 1988; Beverley, 1999; Kilomba, 2008). We encourage disciplinary transgressions between anthropology, cultural studies, literature, history, and others. We welcome researchers working with interdisciplinary and intersectional perspectives to understand the demands and subjectivities around the routes of the expressive arts.Regístrate
133The impact of COVID-19 on Gender violence [Commission of the Anthropology of Pandemics and Commission on Global Feminisms and Queer Politics]119Anita Nudelmananitanudelman@gmail.comMartha Patricia Castañeda Violence against women remains a major threat to women’s health and is a serious global health issue. One in three women worldwide has experienced physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetime and most of it is intimate partner violence (WHO 2020). Incidents of GBV tend to increase during every type of emergency situation – whether crises, conflicts or disease outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of this ongoing pandemic on most countries around the world has increased the socio-cultural, economic and ecological determinants of health which trigger different forms of gender-based violence, including femicide. They have also exposed underlying norms and gender inequalities in socio-economic and health systems which affect GBV. The extensive lockdowns, cramped and confined living conditions, loss of employment, food insecurity and downgrade of health and support services (among others issues), have increased tensions and stress in families and between intimate partners. This has resulted in an increase of gender-based violence, particularly affecting vulnerable populations, such as women and girls who are internally displaced, living in conflict-affected areas, refugees. Despite GBV’s global prevalence, and the fact that nowadays it is discussed more openly in society and the media, it is still one of the most neglected outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic. This Panel encourages the presentation of research results on the impact of COVID-19 on gender-based violence while addressing rural and urban settings, different social classes, as well as disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, such as migrants, refugees, indigenous groups, and women living with disabilities and with HIV/AIDS. In addition, professionals and workers in the field are invited to share their knowledge, experiences and best practices and to contribute to the discussion of how to address gender-based violence in culturally significant ways.Violence against women remains a major threat to women’s health and is a serious global health issue. One in three women worldwide has experienced physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetime and most of it is intimate partner violence (WHO 2020). Anthropologists have studied gender-based violence and abuse in war or conflict settings. Yet others have focused on the structural conditions that precipitate violence or undermine the needs of survivors in domestic settings in specific times and contexts. Incidents of GBV tend to increase during every type of emergency situation whether crises or disease outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of this ongoing pandemic has increased some of the socio-cultural, economic and ecological determinants of health which trigger different forms of gender-based violence, including femicide, while also exposing underlying norms and gender inequalities in the socio-economic and health systems which affect GBV. The extensive lockdowns, cramped and confined living conditions, loss of employment, food insecurity and downgrade of health and support services (among other issues), have enhanced tensions and stress in families and between intimate partners. This has resulted in an increase of GBV, particularly affecting vulnerable populations, such as women and girls, even more so those who are displaced or living in conflict-affected areas. The lockdowns and other social isolation measures implemented during COVID-19, in which often women are at home with their abusers - have led the UN to label the rising of GBV a “shadow pandemic (UN News 301120), which is one of the most neglected outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the laws and services available for such victims may be inadequate and even aggravate their situation (Mittal and Singh 2020). This Panel encourages the presentation of research results on the impact of COVID-19 on all forms of GBV while addressing rural and urban settings, different social classes, as well as disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, such as migrants, refugees, indigenous groups, and women living with disabilities or with HIV/AIDS. This is a privileged theme for anthropological analysis and for interdisciplinarity dialogue. So, professionals and workers in the field are invited to share their knowledge, experiences and best practices and to contribute to the discussion of how to address gender-based violence in culturally significant ways, considering that probable solutions depend on inter/transdisciplinary studies, as well as on inter-institutional and community-based efforts.Regístrate
134Intangible Heritage: safeguard and other forms of (re) existence120Clécia Maria Aquino de Queirozcleciaqueiroz@academico.ufs.brLucia Maria Aquino de Queiroz, Mariel Eva Cisneros López, Vítor Aquino de Queiroz D'ÁvilaThis thematic table proposes to add academic reflections that analyze the daily (re) existence of the holders of diverse activities and knowledge that are considered an immaterial heritage - or that struggle to be one - in local, national, and transnational legal frameworks. We will specifically address the practical-symbolic expedients that make up the daily lives of groups or communities considered traditional in contexts impacted by neoliberal ideologies and influenced by perverse globalization, characterized by invitation, political command of business capital, processes of monetization, and information monopolies. In this adverse scenario, different cultural groups have been using their rites, their artistic practice, and their memories as a way of strengthening identity ties, preserving and safeguarding their cultural heritage, and improving the quality of life of their members. This thematic table aims to reflect on the paths followed by such groups to preserve or recreate their practical-symbolic references. Many of them turn to the state, seeking to achieve institutionalized protection, thus arranging or activating legal components such as registration or safeguard plans. However, other forms of (re) existence will also be contemplated, such as the path of education, territorial resumption, activism, the approach to tourism, and the adoption of other market paths. This thematic table, therefore, houses reflections on possible alternatives adopted by socially vulnerable groups, located, above all, in developing countries marked by racial, social, colonialism, and gender inequalities prevailing in the locations in which they live. We will accept papers that propose to discuss the experience of communities or cultural groups, analyzing their trajectories, actions, difficulties, and strategies used for survival. Proposals that analyze actions in favor of strengthening different cultural groups and a constitution of new culture management systems are also welcomed, in particular those composed of so-called minorities: women, Indians, blacks, and LGBTQIA+ communities.Since its first formulations and proposals by UNESCO and by each of the countries that form it, the theme of intangible heritage has established an intense dialogue with Anthropology (ARANTES, 2008 and 2009, among others; SHAW, 2002). At this table, we intend not only to continue with this dialogue but also to highlight some aspects that are also important to the anthropological discussion of the last decades. If the idea of the separation between the immateriality and/or materiality of certain practices, rites, knowledge, or ways of doing can be tensioned, putting into question, from the so-called “material turn” (PPADURAI, 1986), the complex interactions between supports, people, agencies and institutions; the classic themes of identity and issues of gender, race or other markers of differences and social distances continue to be indispensable for thinking about the links between certain groups or locations, the state and international conventions for registration, preservation, care or safeguarding. We will discuss, from this proposal and in a relational approach, the points of contact and mutual constitution, almost always conflicting, between certain localities and global transits, characterized by constant displacements of capital, people, and products (SANTOS, 2005; APPADURAI, 2004). We will also address the (re) existence in adverse conditions and the constant reconstruction of everyday symbolic-material ties in certain locations that are already considered culturally relevant in their countries and in others that seek this recognition and state protection. We will also discuss the transformations of the concept of culture that these communities promote (CUNHA, 2009, for instance) and the diversity of strategies, actions, and networks (LATOUR, 2005; INGOLD, 2011) that cross them and constitute them. Such connections, even form bonds that cross disciplinary boundaries (such as those of education and tourism), question the partition between the material and the symbolic world and extend to other communities, characterized by irreducible alterities, such as that of the dead, saints, and deities and the state itself. We believe that this thematic and this approach retrieve and situate, in new empirical and theoretical contexts, often suggested by the focused communities themselves, some of the most interesting and urgent debates and proposals in contemporary Anthropology.Regístrate
135Archives, Catalogues, and Ethnography. Classifying Cultural Data and Material Culture in World Anthropologies [IUAES Commission: Museums and Cultural Heritage]121Ricardo Fagoagarfagoaga@gmail.comHannah Turner, Sowparnika BalaswaminathanThe classification of ethnographic cultural data and material culture is significantly diverse in world anthropologies since the early 20th century. The thematic panel “Archives, Catalogues, and Ethnography. Classifying Cultural Data and Material Culture in World Anthropologies” is looking for an open discussion on how different national anthropologies classified ethnographic data and which scientific or political discourses guided the elaboration of field guides or cataloging practices. Instead of thinking of a unique and standardized practice of classifying, the panel will focus on different regions and time periods to help us discuss and envision how cultural/ ethnographic data is constructed.The thematic panel “Archives, Catalogues, and Ethnography. Classifying Cultural Data and Material Culture in World Anthropologies” will discuss the origin of ethnographic data classification and how it evolved differently in world anthropologies. In our panel, we will have different perspectives on how institutions, mostly in the Global North, classified ethnographic and material data from cultures all over the world and under specific rules. Other institutions and anthropologies, from the Global South, classified according to their own interests, sometimes following ideas from different national anthropologies. Our panel will look to different perspectives of classification from different national anthropologies in different time periods. If possible, we want to put together different perspectives in a historical context and we will discuss the new forms of ethnographic data classification that include how communities can work with anthropologists to improve the classification process. How do anthropologists classify ethnographic and cultural data is at the center of the discussion, but we hope to start a parallel discussion on who owns or has rights over the data in museums and archives. The discussion on who owns data is different in national contexts. We want to learn and discuss how to make available our data to the public and how they can also benefit from it.Regístrate
137Objects, Ethnographic Collections and Cosmopolitics of Memory - How do indigenous peoples define the Museum? [Commission Museums and Cultural Heritage (COMACH)]122Sachiko Kubotamuseums.iuaes@gmail.comAlexandre Gomes, Teresa MoralesThis Thematic Table intends to bring together indigenous intellectuals from different countries who have been working in a direct and continuous dialogue with museums, mainly in order to debate and rethink the way museums represent them and create unreal narratives of their presence in their countries. Currently, indigenous peoples are also looking to create their own museum spaces in their indigenous lands, where the notion of memory is a central issue for mobilizations around patrimonialized indigenous objects that allows a narrative about the representation of these peoples in Museums and that in some are translated in restitution and / or repatriation of objects until musealized in previous centuries. It is perceived in this current context of indigenous peoples that the ethnic dynamics involved in expressing a cosmopolitics of memory occur through the construction of new narratives of interethnic contact. These are expressed in the way in which the indigenous peoples themselves construct an updated semantics for the meanings of their relations with national societies. In this process, at present, indigenous peoples are fighting for their own existence where each and every narrative needs to be permeated with their own memories. This clearly shows that these collectives do not need a museum to create their memory policies. What can be perceived also through anthropological and ethnological academic production is the existence of an approximation of museums in relation to collectives of indigenous peoples so that they can act in the construction of new narratives for such museums. This has been seen as collaborative work with representatives of indigenous peoples. These activities are well regarded both in the field of disciplinary anthropology and museology. This literature, in fact, seeks to show indigenous protagonism in these museological processes in different ways and different methodologies, expanding the possibility of dialogue between Ameridians and Museums.In recent years, the IUAES’ COMACH has been monitoring the activities of anthropologists with indigenous peoples on museological processes and members of the commission believe that the time has come to enable the listening of the indigenous intellectuals involved in these museological processes. It is believed that the online congress being organized in Yucatán could be a significant and important space for the participation of these indigenous intellectuals, just at the moment, that the important institution such as ICOM is discussing a new definition of Museum. This emerging indigenous participation in collaborative actions in ethnographic museums and, above all, the advent of indigenous museums, as well as documentation centers and “houses of cultures”, indicate a concern of these peoples for the construction of another narrative about their cultural heritage, memories and histories. interethnic relations. The involvement of indigenous collectives in projects to build specific spaces that represent their own cultures, coincides with the general claim for revitalization and the importance of their rites, knowledge, practices and epistemology present in their ecosystems present in their ethnic territories. This thematic table will undoubtedly discuss some emerging and central issues regarding the relationship between museums and indigenous peoples, as these museum spaces can constitute an important reference point for the struggles and resistance of indigenous peoples in their countries of origin. Putting aside colonial narratives, still present in many museums. It will also be possible to have a greater understanding of the claims of an “indigenous museum”, which seek a different space from the category of “community museums” as they are often classified. It is not just a classification but giving due place to these museums built on first person narratives. In fact, a necessary discussion to even think about indigenous museology, since this debate is being held by indigenous intellectuals in different countries. The effects of the patrimonialization of indigenous cultures pose new challenges for indigenous peoples. The museum institution, due to the violent and colonizing situations present in museography of native cultural expressions, arranged in its collections present in ethnographic or historical museums. Consequently, these museums represent in some places indigenous peoples with losses and a past within a winning and civilizing national history. The anthropological literature on these museological processes suggests the existence of a complexity of indigenous thought, when it comes to narrating the knowledge and symbolic practices, signaling, above all, cultural diversity also among these peoples and that goes against a narrative. The field of cosmopolitics of memories promoted by these indigenous collectives correspond to an important moment of political discussion about the processes of intense cultural transformation to which they are submitted. The indigenous museums built and maintained by these indigenous peoples, in different countries, assume an important role in the various forms of resistance of these groups, as they constitute powerful spaces for the demand for education, health, differentiated economies, and for valuing traditional processes transmission of knowledge and practices, leisure, ethnic visibility, construction of representation and counter-narratives, production and diffusion of their own cultures.Regístrate
138Domestic workers struggles for their rights: creating cultural heritage and memory in Latin America and other latitudes [Human Rights].123Mary Rosaria Goldsmithmarygoldsmithc@gmail.comAvril Regina Arjona-Luna, Jurema Gorski BritesThis panel aims to analyze how domestic workers’ organizations, through their day to day activities and political movements, generate and transmit cultural heritage. Despite the nuances and spatial-temporal particularities, we consider that the collective experiences of domestic workers in Latin America, and other latitudes, represent an important, often invisible, cultural heritage; this has contributed to the recognition of their wisdom, knowledge and rights. Discussion would include, but not be limited to the following topics: Political struggle and the subaltern creation of culture How domestic workers’ interpretations of, and proposals to subvert, power relations are expressed in their songs, poems, plays, videos, slogans and graphic materials such as banners, flyers, photographs and newsletters The invention, institutionalization and celebration of rituals, such as “International Domestic Workers Day” The challenge to power relations through language How political tactics and strategies are used, shared and incorporated into the repertoire of organizations How do domestic workers’ organizations produce, preserve and transmit their histories, what aspects of their histories are underscored or minimized. Spatial and historical dimensions of domestic workers’ cultural heritageIn Latin America there is a long history of domestic workers’ movements dating back to the third decade of the 20th century, that were clearly marked by class, race and gender. The intersecting peculiarities of these and other inequalities, such as age, need to be revisited, in order to detect and to understand the processes through which domestic workers , in very different parts of the world, develop their own collective demands and strategies and become political and epistemic subjects who are recognized within their own communities. Recovering will allow us to scrutinize our notions about these collective memories to problematize our notions about living cultural heritage and women workers’ human rights. The objectives of this panel are: 1) To problematize the struggles for labor rights, as a fundamental axis of women's human rights, as cultural heritage that is political, ethical and aesthetic. 2) To recover and make visible, from the standpoint of historical anthropology and feminist anthropology, the most important aspects of the collective memory of paid domestic workers fighting for their human rights. 3) To map the similarities and particularities that, in different latitudes, domestic workers’ experiences of intersectional inequalities 4) To highlight the processes, demands and strategies that have enabled domestic workers to recognize themselves as subjects of knowledge and of their own struggles. The academic relevance of our proposal lies in the invitation to dialogue between anthropology, history and feminism to articulate two categories and processes that are infrequently articulated: cultural heritage and women's struggles. Inspired by anthropologists such as Eric Wolf and Verena Stolcke, we argue that the memory of domestic workers struggles for their human rights, is fundamental to understanding the political, cultural and historical dimensions of the subjectification of women workers. In practical terms, we consider that the panel can provide perspectives and debates that enrich the anthropological sciences in terms of field work, ethnographies and the paradigms regarding women in different historical y spatial contexts.Regístrate
139Exploring the role of the social determinants of health and people-centered approaches for health activism and quality care during COVID [Commission of the Anthropology of Pandemics]124Reddi Sekhara Yalamalanuer13@gmail.comSrividhya SamakyaWith the onset of Covid-19, the world has witnessed the importance of social determinants of health which determining health outcomes for rural and marginalized populations. Newly appeared pandemic in March 2020 is sudden and vastly quarantined the people’s movement across the globe within a span of time. In this context, these social determinants are emphasized primarily access to food, shelter, culturally appropriate care, and Medicare access among vulnerable and marginalized groups (e.g., tribes, bottom castes, Indigenous people). These means to achieve better health outcomes, and social well-being depend on the availability of primary public healthcare and health advocacy; national subsidized and quality care. Such factors determined global health disparities and inefficiency of healthcare interventions of IMF and WHO over the past century in Ebola, SARS pandemics; and reifying health disparities; the global struggles for public healthcare. In considering the outbreak of Covid-19, the global nations must on two key priorities in their healthcare policies such as social determinants and valuing peoples' partnership and citizens participation in dealing with the rapid infections among different populations. Further, it is important to study how the multitude of state, private, and communities react to the COVID-19 and exploring the emic dimensions on the infection, social determinants of health, and quality care among the global marginalized. The panel invites case studies emphasizing the socio-economic determinants, epidemiological factors, and peoples/patient- partnership approach for the global pandemic.  To explore the relationship between social determinants of health and their importance in scoping pandemic surveillance and healthcare-access among marginalized communities;  To understand the role of public institutions (government), private and people’s participation in achieving socialExploring the role of social determinants of health and peoples-centered approaches for the health activism and quality care in the COVID-19 With the onset of Covid-19, the world has witnessed the importance of social determinants of health which determining health outcomes for rural and marginalized populations. Newly appeared pandemic in March 2020 is sudden and vastly quarantined the people’s movement across the globe within a span of time. In this context, these social determinants are emphasized primarily access to food, shelter, culturally appropriate care, and Medicare access among vulnerable and marginalized groups (e.g., tribes, bottom castes, Indigenous people). These means to achieve better health outcomes, and social well-being depend on the availability of primary public healthcare and health advocacy; national subsidized and quality care. Such factors determined global health disparities and inefficiency of healthcare interventions of IMF and WHO over the past century in Ebola, SARS pandemics; and reifying health disparities; the global struggles for public healthcare. In considering the outbreak of Covid-19, the global nations must on two key priorities in their healthcare policies such as social determinants and valuing peoples' partnership and citizens participation in dealing with the rapid infections among different populations. However, few nations in East Asia achieved remarkable success in reducing the pandemic while the two major powerful democracies USA and UK were lagged. In this context, partnering with targeted/ marginalized populations and local communities in tracing the COVID-19 infections is considered crucial in dealing with global pandemics (e.g., New Zealand, Canada). Further, it is important to study how the multitude of state, private, and communities react to the COVID-19 and exploring the emic dimensions on the infection, social determinants of health, and quality care among the global marginalized. The panel invites case studies emphasizing the socio-economic determinants, epidemiological factors, and peoples'/ patient- partnership approach for the global pandemic. Global ethnographic studies and community-based studies on the ongoing pandemic are welcomed to flesh-out the macro-state perspective and social approaches with a significant focus on positive health outcomes and health activism. ? To explore the relationship between social determinants of health and their importance in scoping pandemic surveillance and healthcare-access among marginalized communities; ? To understand different social and cultural factors of pandemic (emic dimension) involved in the global spread and its impact on health rights of the citizenry; ? To understand the role of public institutions (government), private and people’s participation in achieving social equity and better health outcomes; ? Understand the pathways to an equitable, sustainable, and egalitarian society and the concept of “health for all”.Regístrate
140Mother Earth (Pachamama): Matrimonium or Patrimonium? The Latin American communal structure facing Western globalization.125Juan Luis Ramírez Torres Sjlramirezt@uaemex.mxEnrique Rivera VelaThe generating structures of the original Latin American worlds have germinated within the earth itself, in which this organic-mineral matter, territorial, and with cultural significance in the social, economic, and political context, with deep motivations leads to the concept of being the Mother Earth (Pachamama) for those who inhabit its lands. With the European arrival, the maternal-female sense was upset by the Western view, centered on the paternal-male; such a confrontational situation is expressed here, by the verbalization from the Greco-Latin tradition: mãtrimõnium or patrimõnium. Two contrasting axes, from the worldviews of the original peoples with respect to Mother Earth vs Patrimony, express the contradiction between the maternal and the communal in America, with respect to the paternal and patrimonial sense of social goods in the Western perception. In the current global orbit, where indigenous communities confront Westernizing ideologies and actions from their symbolic systems, they build their own strategies in defense of their land as a material and identity asset. In this context, this panel proposes to reflect, from the anthropological feeling, around the category earth, through the communal forms, together with their narratives that allow to identify the deep substrate of the telluric matrix, in which meaning, and practice are built among the indigenous peoples in Latin America.The theme starts from the concepts related to the earth, as an instance of community, territorial, ascription, and economic-cultural habitat, synthesized in the mother figure from which the cultural symbols of Mother Earth are derived in various Latin American ethnic worldviews. Objective: To analyze from anthropology perspective, the meaning that the original Andean and Mesoamerican peoples give to the earth, in contrast to the western vision.Regístrate
142Rural Heritage in the Urban Context: Continuity of Traditional Practices126Sumita Chaudhurisumita_chau@hotmail.comZannat- E Ferdousi Lucky, Claudia MoralesUrban agriculture is a rural heritage which tends to lose importance as people stay longer in the city. Recent migrants from the country side are not yet socially, culturally and economically integrated into the urban environment. As these people are unskilled, uneducated and economically weak, urban agriculture can give them the opportunity to grow their own food and can improve their socio-economic condition.Urban agriculture is a rural heritage which tends to lose importance as people stay longer in the city. Recent migrants from the country side are not yet socially, culturally and economically integrated into the urban environment. Often they are illiterate, without much capital and with a limited network of family relationship. Urban agriculture can give them the opportunity to grow their own food and can improve their socio-economic condition. Urban farmers cultivate as many crops as possible on small plots. Several studies show that within the household it is the women who are mainly responsible for these activities. Psychologically, it gives women self confidence and feelings of independence when they can support their own family and are able to save some money. Agriculture is not a way of passing time for these women, it is a sheer-necessity. Most people who work in the farm land in the periphery in the city, live all their live in these areas and are incorporated irresistibly into the urban area swept in the fast growth of the city. They keep on doing what they have always done. On a small scale, these farmers are involved in commercial agriculture. They produce cash crops, flower and food nurseries and breed cattle. These farm lands are cultivated mainly by the urban poor. This continuity of cultural heritage can be examined with cross cultural experiences from different parts of the world. Regístrate