confidente

MESAS REDONDAS APROBADAS

Para desplegar el contenido de cada mesa, selecciona el símbolo + o haz clic sobre el título del panel de tu interés.

TÍTULO DE LA MESANo.COORDINADORCO-COORDINADORESPARTICIPANTESRESUMEN CORTORESUMEN
1Practice-Academic Research Partnerships: A Relationship in Crisis?1Estella CarpiLeonardo SchiocchetHeidrun Friese, Till Mostowlansky, Sascha FullerResearch on humanitarianism and development has long focused on humanitarian intervention by social actors ranging from international agencies to NGOs and grassroots organizations, and on their impact especially on the Global South. The mutual benefit of the humanitarian intervention-academia relationship is: qualitative research informs intervention programs, while grounded research primarily needs access to data provided by case workers and activists. Throughout years of critical research on development, things have become complicated: academic and non-academic institutions have built a complex relationship that opened up a series of ethical and methodological issues. Yet, North-South power relationships have largely remained unchallenged. This roundtable reflects on academia-humanitarian intervention relations through ethnographic experiences ranging from Central and South Asia, to Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific. The discussion departs from the concern that academic-humanitarian intervention research relationships have become tokenistic for research impact and accountability, and more interested in concerted efforts to raise funds and less oriented to mutual learning and actual structural transformations. With no critical research, communities of practice risk embarking on decontextualized and even culturally unsuitable programs, while academia, if not informed by data access and practical learning, risks undertaking poorly evidenced research and a redundant proliferation of unapplicable theories. Therefore, this roundtable discusses the possibilities to engage academically with communities of practice and people in need (especially refugees), without the need to import unsuitable language or technocratic analytical categories. Moreover, it will shed light on forms of mistrust that critical research has generated within practice-oriented environments, leading communities of practice to increasingly forbid access to internal data in order to not impinge on the external assessments of programs and to not endanger external funding. This roundtable also discusses the impact of practice- or intervention-oriented research, including but not limited to the NGO-ization of research, where, in the framework of partnerships with NGOs, academics are increasingly invited to adopt NGO language and attune their engagement with theory to development policies and practices. The NGO-ization of academic research is an evident – though often implicit - requirement in many international funding schemes, such as Horizon 2020 in Europe. The need to make academic research sustainably funded has encouraged academic institutions to adopt NGO and/or civil society categories of research management and excellence, such as ‘impact’ and ‘capacity building’. Furthermore, intervention-oriented research generates greater expectations of research participants on academic projects, especially in vulnerable contexts. But what are the ethical and theoretical-methodological implications of this sort of impact-driven research? Does it succeed in producing more solid and equal researcher-respondent relationships? Discussion of these topics and across them aims to develop a systematic understanding of the culturally layered relationship between academics and the humanitarian intervention, which has often been deemed as either instrumental (for NGOs to have their presence legitimized in the areas of need, and for academia to be viewed as abandoning the ‘ivory tower’), or primarily money-driven (NGO-academic partnerships have indeed attracted large amounts of international funding over the last decade).
2Life and Death in Contemporary Worlds: Emerging Dialogues and Caring Heritages Between Global South and Global North2Ana Gretel Echazú BöschemeierLucrecia Raquel Greco, Verónica Moreno Uribe, Jasmin Immonen, Delmy Tania Cruz HernándezThis roundtable proposes to discuss ways in which different views of Anthropology linked to Collective Health, the Body and Human Rights can amplify our comprehension and practice of Caring Heritages towards life and death in Human and More-Than-Human Worlds. By gathering ethnographic, real-time insights on how life and death are managed and "cared" in cross-cultural geographies, we propose to discuss the emergence of renewed ways to connect to vital, subjective and social life in processes of health-disease, socio-environmental troubles, social interventions and pedagogic processes. Our standpoint considers the action of necropolitical suicidal state practices (Safatle, 2000) in contexts of fascisms and the organized collective resistances against it, bringing critical perspectives about Non-Human Worlds, Human worlds and their/our artificial lives in between. By connecting the plurality of scientific knowledge, traditional knowledge, and the knowledge coming from the diverse embodied experiences as three vital points of reference, we aim to strengthen the discussion about academic and political “best practices” towards associating teachers, scientists, and activists linked to local communities in transnational and transhuman webs of knowledge and solidarity. We propose to recognize the disruptiveness of care in contexts of carelessness (Puig De La Bellacasa, 2017) and the significance of searching for local understandings of community care as ways of exploring "good living" (Acosta, 2000) in vernacular cultures. Intertwined dispositives of “feeling-thinking” (Fals Borda, 2009) unfolded in this round table will allow us to collectively point out: a) the embodied knowledge of traditional communities in Latin America dealing with State policies in COVID-19 contexts; b) the practice of translating materials for Health Education in Brazil towards a reflexion about knowledge heritages, care and carelessness in context of produced vulnerability; c); The strategic role of critical teaching of Anthropology in professions linked to Health Sciences in the European context, and d) The struggles for life of vulnerable subjects in necropolitical contexts coming from African birth experiences. As tools for reinforcing an engaged approach to medical interventions, social policies and academic initiatives toward a work of sharing vulnerabilities with/as subjects living "precarious lives" (Butler, 2016), we aim to discuss the range of perspectives going from sustained topics about Health, the Body and Human Rights towards the co-production of emerging Caring Heritages in a rapidly changing world. Individual Proposals: Lucrecia Greco: “Traditional communities in Latin America and COVID-19: Embodied Knowledge dealing with State Health Policies” Ana Gretel Echazú Böschemeier: “Caring Heritages and Official Carelessness in Marginalized Populations: Translating Materials for Health Education in Today´s Brazil”. Verónica Moreno Uribe "Comunidades de cuidado en medio de procesos de precarización y violencia. Resistires y re-existencias como formas de reproducción de la vida en la Sierra de Zongolica, Veracruz, México". Jasmin Immonen " A Story of care and “carelessness” in Finland: What the statistics don’t tell". Delmy Tania Cruz Hernández "La salud se camina..." Mujeres organizadas en busca de la salud territorial en contextos de violencia lenta, ecocidio y pandemia provocada por el Covid-19"
3Im/Mobility in times of COVID-19 [Commission of Migration]3Sophia ThubauvilleBobby Luthra Sinha, Vinicius Kauê Ferreira, Kristin LoftsdóttirBiao Xiang, Annika Lems, Leonardo Schiocchet, Jeffrey Cohen, Lia Rodriguez de la VegaThe COVID pandemic had and still has dramatic changes in all spheres of our lives. It has made us question many habits and limit many areas of life. Mobility is probably one of the areas most affected by the pandemic. The restriction of mobility was one of the most common answers of governments to control and limit the spread of COVID. The restrictions did not only concern supra-regional travel restrictions, but also the restriction of freedom of movement within countries and even within a narrow radius around one's own living space. What impact do such historically unique restrictions have in a world, in which today many people rely on mobility for their private as well as their professional lives? How do people reach out in lockdown and semi-lockdown conditions? In which ways can humanitarian, field-based collaborations be documented during pandemic times? The Roundtable aims to provide a platform for researchers who have conducted research on these topics during the past few months to exchange ideas. After a brief insight into their individual research projects, participants will discuss the following questions: - Which new insights did the pandemic bring for anthropological research on im/mobilities? - Could we say that the pandemics promoted specific forms of mobility? - How were mobility and immobility reevaluated through the pandemic? Which new moral boundaries have been drawn here? - In what ways the pandemics was instrumentalised to legitimate the mobility restriction of undesired subjects and strenghten anti-migrant discourses? - How does the discussed research projects suggest that im/mobility will change in future due to the experiences oft he pandemic? - What do all these new developments challenge our own research in social anthropology, which has always depended on a high mobility?
4Global Connections across Definitions of Heritage4Edwin A. SchmittPhilipp DemgenskiShabnam Inanloo Dailoo, Simone Toji, Marilio Wane, Joar SkredeThe burgeoning discipline of heritage studies orbits around a concept—heritage—which itself defies any clear-cut definitions. It sometimes appears that there are as many definitions of heritage as there are people practicing and researching it. In recent years, in order to clarify and specify the concept, a range of adjectives have been added in front of heritage. For example, “disputed heritage”, “dark heritage”, “difficult heritage”, “painful heritage” have emerged to demonstrate that there is a “negative heritage” (Rico 2008; Sørensen et al. 2015). And yet the concept of heritage itself often remains taken for granted and undefined. In his important essay on “heritage agnosticism,” anthropologist Christoph Brumann (2014: 173) provided an expedient tool for anthropologists to approach heritage by leaving its effects open to empirical investigation. But these effects as well as the way in which heritage is operationalized are contingent upon its definition or, at the very least, upon a general idea of what heritage is or supposed to be. As anthropologists are increasingly not only researching heritage, but also becoming involved as experts or facilitators in heritage practice, we believe that it is essential to understand how heritage has been and is being defined across geographical regions and diverse practices. As the field of anthropology ballooned in the postwar era, a critical review of the definition of “culture” was undertaken to take stock of its diversity and uses (Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952). We believe the time is now ripe for such an analysis of the concept of “heritage”, but with the goal of including definitions and practices that go beyond the Anglo-phone academic context. This roundtable is designed to be the foundation for a larger project on how definitions of heritage are operationalized in those different contexts. To start off, the roundtable will describe a group analysis of the way heritage has been defined (explicitly or implicitly) in the abstracts submitted to this conference. The participants will then give an overview of the way “heritage” is defined in the context of their work in Brazil, Canada, China, Mozambique, and Norway. The primary goal of this roundtable, however, is to open the floor to the audience, to fill in the interstitial global connections that create continuities and discontinuities in definitions of heritage across the globe. Our hope is that colleagues from around the world attending the IUAES can add their voice and insights into this project, which will ensure that it also is not limited by an Anglo-phone or Eurocentric perspective of how processes of heritage are defined and placed into practice. Brumann, C., 2014. Heritage agnosticism: a third path for the study of cultural heritage. Social Anthropology, 22(2), pp.173-188. Kroeber, A.L. and Kluckhohn, C., 1952. Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, Harvard University. Rico, T., 2008. Negative heritage: The place of conflict in world heritage. Conservation and management of archaeological sites, 10(4), pp.344-352. Sørensen, M.L.S. and Viejo-Rose, D. eds., 2015. War and cultural heritage. Cambridge University Press.
5New and old social persistency: Care as a proposal in times of pandemic5Andrea Lissett Pérez FonsecaMaría Elena AcuñaSantiago Martínez, Yadira Eugenia Borrero, Leonardo Montoya, Dasten Julián Vejar, Yaneth SegoviaWe invite you to discuss one of the most important cultural heritages for many social communities. During the current times of crisis unleashed by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is imperative to seek alternatives, such as the knowledge and practices of care that are maintained and/or have been activated in multiple sociocultural contexts of Latin America. The pandemic has deepened the contexts of inequality, poverty and social exclusion that already existed among the majority of Latin American populations. These populations have endured the oppression caused by capitalism, colonialism and patriarchalism throughout history whose effects have been exacerbated during the neoliberal hegemony of the last 40 years, including free market, reduction of public investment and privatization of basic social services. Moreover, the strategic importance of care among said populations went beyond the domestic and female scope to that of symbolic and political power, by articulating dispersed debates and agencies and generating consensus on fundamental principles for the care and preservation of life. In Latin America, there is a great diversity of knowledge and practices -popular and traditional- related to food, health and violence against women. However, this legacy has been historically unknown and undervalued by the institutional framework, which, on the other hand, has encouraged the tendency to transfer by mechanical means the practices and expectations of expert knowledge, services and programs. This roundtable proposes a dialogue on the knowledge and practices of care in Latin America based on the different reflections and ethnographic experiences of participants, for the purpose of evidencing and debating two competing processes: On the one hand, the growing precariousness of life and the social persistence for a dignified life, on the other.Latin America holds a dishonourable first place as the most unequal region in the world. It is also the region with the greatest land concentration and grabbing. It is plagued by acute levels of historical inequality, social injustice, economic dependence and political corruption, torn between the legacy of European colonialism and the new facets of neo-liberalism in the global south.Likewise, previously existing social and economic inequalities mean that Covid-19 deepens the forms of discrimination. Inequitable socio-economic conditions are determining in understanding that the pandemic and the public policy decisions aimed at its management affects social groups differently. Although inequalities in Latin America have their roots in colonialism, the precariousness of the population increased during the neoliberal hegemony of the last forty years, due to free market, reduction of public investment and privatization of basic public services.The public and the collective were removed from social practices and subjectivities, to such a degree as to threaten the very continuity of social existence, as evidenced by the violation of an essential right to life: Access to health services for the whole population. The most notorious consequence of this model for the majority of people, not only for the poor, marginalized, Third World citizens, was a greater precariousness of all the dimensions of life: social, political and symbolic.At the same time, it is key to the historical journey of resistance and socio-cultural persistency of various social sectors that have permitted the prevalence of life in spite of the dominant precariousness. There are ancestral, popular and academic knowledge conceived from other logics and meanings of care, such as, for example, decolonial Living Well (Buen Vivir), Latin American feminisms, regional environmentalisms and perspectivism, as well as multiple food, territorial and societal practices for the preservation of existence.In addition to destabilizing, every crisis leads to opportunities that can emanate from several directions, the conservative one, of returning to previously existing normality that was inequitable for the majority of the peoples. Another reformist one, of to returning to the pre-existing normality, whereby the structural core was favourable to minorities, and with mitigations for the majorities, and a third, libertarian one, which proposes the search for different alternatives, different ways out that lead to structural changes. It is under this last horizon that the following objectives are proposed for the present Roundtable: (a) to exchange different knowledge and practices of care in Latin America based on the reflections and ethnographic experiences of the participants. (b) To highlight other possibilities –epistemological- ontological, ethical and praxeological, which value life within the socio-cultural, institutional and academic contexts of Latin America. (c) To debate two competing processes: On the one hand, the growing precariousness of life and, on the other, the social persistency of a dignified life.
7Anthropology and Pandemics. Isolation, Inplacement and Disasters [Anthropology of Risk and Disasters]6Virginia García AcostaSusanna M. HoffmanKamiar Alaei, Thomas Hylland Eriksen, Joost Fontein, Adriana María Garriga-Lopez, David SlaterSince the beginning of 2020, the entire world has been engulfed a profound global disaster, the COVID-19 pandemic. It has affected people of every race, gender, and social class in every nation. COVID-19 is not the first worldwide outbreak of a lethal disease. Nor will it be the last. Neither is it unique as a Disaster. With it, and likely epidemics to come, people have instead been obliged to isolate. They have undergone “inplacement”. Anthropology has always dealt with groups. Its purview rests on human “herding” and the exploration of whole cultures and societies. In this Round-Table, stemming from a book that will be published by Berghahn, besides other aspects of disasters as politics, economics, vulnerabilities, disparities, transmission of knowledge, contestation, revelations, and scars of colonization, we are investigating something new and different: the phenomena of human sequestration, and its effects on persons, cultures, and society, which are manifold. New socio-cultural alterations that are yet unexplored by Anthropology. A sample of the 24 worldwide contributions, representing every continent, global south and north, will present their drafts. Since, the contributors themselves are confined to their own habitats, their examinations by necessity are based on being both researcher and subject, participant and participant observer. In consequence, while the chapters’ analyses unfold from great anthropology depth, they are also by circumstance self-reflective. Countries and regions participating in the Round-Table include research coming from: Brasil, India, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Puerto Rico, South-Africa, Sweden, USA The convenors of the Round-Table, which are editors of the book will participate as discussants in the Round-Table (García-Acosta and Hoffman). There are 15 confirmed participants, all of them anthropologists. Names and affiliations of five of them come below, as participant #1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The other 10 are: Faas, A.J., San José State University; Gitonga, Mercy, University of Johannesburg; Grayman, Jesse Hession, University of Auckland; Mendes, Paulo, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal; Murphy, Fiona, Queen’s University Belfast; Rajan, Ravi, University of California, Santa Cruz; Reis, Filipe, Instituto Superior de Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa/ Centro em Rede de Investigação em Antropologia, Portugal; Simmons, David, University of South Carolina; Soares, Pedro P. M. A., Federal University of Pará, Brazil; Ullberg, Susann Baez, Uppsala University.
8Is contemporary identity politics conducive to achieving sustained social justice? [Commission on Marginalization and Global Apartheid]7Jonatan KurzwellyAndrew 'Mugsy' SpiegelČarna Brković, Kamari Maxine Clarke, Raju Das, Wandile Kasibe, Daniel YonMost of today’s progressivist political struggles rest on identity politics and “strategic essentialism”. They include, for example, calls for removing symbols of historical identity-based oppression from public spaces, identitarian heritage claims, revision and diversification of teaching curricula, enforcement of equity-employment laws that challenge identity-based salary differences and unequal representation in corporate management or political institutions and contesting countries’ legal and administrative systems. Current academic debates often tend to have a polarised evaluation of such a politics. Although many are more nuanced, some post- and de-colonial scholars seem to argue for the necessity of a political solidarity based on given identities or on broad social categories of subalterity such as Africanness, blackness or indigeneity. They argue that such identity politics carries the potential to expose particular injustices and oppression that is based on specific social categories, and that it permits united action by those affected. On the other hand, voices coming from a Marxian or cosmopolitan scholarly perspectives argue that such contemporary identity politics, unlike its historical predecessors in social rights movements, (i) often poses no real challenge to the neoliberal capitalist status quo (because such movements are often hijacked by identitarian elites and because they fight exploitation and oppressions symptoms rather than their causes); (ii) makes broader class-based alliances difficult; and (iii) puts too much emphasis on identitarian differences (often reproducing essentialism) rather than on the universality of the human condition and of human rights. This round table’s discussion will focus on the extent to which identity politics, in its historical- and spatial-contextually diverse forms, is conducive to, or hinders, struggles to achieve sustained social justice and to achieve a resiliently just and equal world. Contributors will draw on particular examples and on diverse socio-politically embedded scholarly traditions to debate the topic. In order to have some common ground of departure for our debate, we suggest some short texts relating to the subject: - Das, Raju (2020) "Identity Politics: A Marxist View," Class, Race and Corporate Power, vol. 8(1), Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol8/iss1/5 - Fraser, Nancy (2008) “From redistribution to recognition: Dilemmas of justice in a "postsocialist" age.” In K. Olson (Ed.), Adding insult to injury: Nancy Fraser debates her critics, pp. 9-31, London: Verso.
9The International Importance of Non-hegemonic anthropologies8Gustavo Lins RibeiroFrancine SaillantBela Feldman-Bianco, Heike Becker, João Pacheco de OliveiraAlbeit a transnational cosmopolitics, anthropologies are always practiced in national scenarios. The latter, to some extent, shape the discipline’s characteristics depending on sociological factors such as institutional dynamics (scientific and educational policies, for instance) and the historical relationships between nation-building processes and internal or external exotic others. It suffices to look at the syllabi of courses on the history of the discipline to acknowledge that the international importance and dissemination of hegemonic anthropologies is taken for granted. This is obviously not the case when non-hegemonic anthropologies are at stake. This round table will explore the international importance of non-hegemonic anthropologies in the world system of anthropological production.Albeit a transnational cosmopolitics, anthropologies are always practiced in national scenarios. The latter, to some extent, shape the discipline’s characteristics depending on sociological factors such as institutional dynamics (scientific and educational policies, for instance) and the historical relationships between nation-building processes and internal or external exotic others. It suffices to look at the syllabi of courses on the history of the discipline to acknowledge that the international importance and dissemination of hegemonic anthropologies is taken for granted. This is obviously not the case when non-hegemonic anthropologies are at stake. This round table will explore the international importance of non-hegemonic anthropologies in the world system of anthropological production.
10Anthropology and its Public Engagements: Experiences and Reflexions9Anne JohnsonLaura KorčulaninPaul Stoller, Luis Reygadas, Esteban KrotzWhat is anthropology for? It’s a complicated question, and one with a long and contentious history. Since the inception of the discipline, anthropologists have been interested in the impacts their work may have outside the activities traditionally associated with academia. In this roundtable, we discuss the complicated relationships between anthropology and its publics, real and potential. We reflect on the ways in which anthropologists have engaged with non-anthropological publics and, in doing so, ponder the very notions of “engagement” and “publics”, as well as on the temporal and spatial scale of anthropological practice. The discussion will revolve around some of the questions raised by anthropological engagement with a variety of publics. How have anthropologists engaged in “matters of public interest”? What kinds of dialogues have anthropologists participated in, and with whom? What have been the impacts of these engagements, if any? What have anthropologists contributed to debates in the public sphere? How have anthropological knowledge or questions impacted decision making outside of academia? Conversely, what new perspectives have anthropologists gained from participating in the public sphere? What tensions or conflicts have arisen from these encounters? What ethical implications have arisen? Finally, what kinds of new connections between anthropologists and non-anthropologists are possible and desirable in the world today? In this round table, we open a space for dialogue and discussion between anthropologists whose engagements with their publics have been shaped by a wide variety of personal and professional experiences. By reflecting on such diverse experiences, we hope to generate ideas about how to promote new forms of dialogue between anthropology and its publics, especially given the current situation of the world we share but inhabit in sometimes radically different waysWhat is anthropology for? It’s a complicated question, and one with a long and contentious history. Since the inception of the discipline, anthropologists have been interested in the impacts their work may have outside the activities traditionally associated with academia. In this roundtable, we discuss the complicated relationships between anthropology and its publics, real and potential. We reflect on the ways in which anthropologists have engaged with non-anthropological publics and, in doing so, ponder the very notions of “engagement” and “publics”, as well as on the temporal and spatial scale of anthropological practice. The discussion will revolve around some of the questions raised by anthropological engagement with a variety of publics. How have anthropologists engaged in “matters of public interest”? What kinds of dialogues have anthropologists participated in, and with whom? What have been the impacts of these engagements, if any? What have anthropologists contributed to debates in the public sphere? How have anthropological knowledge or questions impacted decision making outside of academia? Conversely, what new perspectives have anthropologists gained from participating in the public sphere? What tensions or conflicts have arisen from these encounters? What ethical implications have arisen? Finally, what kinds of new connections between anthropologists and non-anthropologists are possible and desirable in the world today? Hailing from Latin America, Europe and the United States, although their research topics have lured them to many other sites, they write blogs on social media sites and articles in national newspapers; they work with companies to include ethnographic knowledge in the design process; they create works of public performance and generate spaces for dialogue between artists, techno- and social scientists, and they work with government agencies to design educational policy, among other forms of engagement. The principal objective of this round table is to open a space for dialogue and discussion between anthropologists whose engagements with their publics have been shaped by a wide variety of personal and professional experiences, including research interests, career trajectories and national or regional contexts which both promote and limit the possibilities of public engagement. By reflecting on such diverse experiences, we hope to generate ideas about how to promote new forms of dialogue between anthropology and its publics, especially given the current situation of the world we share but inhabit in sometimes radically different ways.
11Refocusing Objects and Ethnographic Collections: Collaborative Projects between Indigenous People and Museums [Commission of Museums and Cultural Heritage (COMACH)]10Renato AthiasElena S. SobolevaAnna Bottesi, Karten Krueger, Pascale De RobertIn recent years, there have been many changes in the relationship between museums and indigenous peoples. Museum activities are gradually taking on the perspective of indigenous peoples who, in reality, are the authorities of their own cultural heritage. This roundtable aims to discuss all methodological aspects of collaborative projects between indigenous peoples and museums, with regard to ethnographic objects and collections. These projects at present, show a new perception of museum institutions in relation to Indigenous peoples. With this new type of cooperation, museums seek, especially in the management of their ethnographic collections, to get closer to indigenous peoples. This shows a change in the power relationship where cultural institutions and indigenous peoples seek to build new models of relationships, which in reality, never existed in the recent past in the institutional histories of museums. The information that is available until then is that these collaborative initiatives, which are different from each other, but share common elements in the establishment of collaborative partnerships. And indigenous communities are often called upon to become much more involved in museum activities in relation to ethnographic collections. These activities are in reality seeking to give agency to indigenous communities, as they are managers of their cultural heritage and addressing the political situations of indigenous communities are involved. These collaborative initiatives were received with enthusiasm in indigenous communities. The level of political commitment to the success of these collaborative experiences is perceived. One of the principles of these experiences is part of the understanding that ethnographic collections can no longer be considered and presented only for their aesthetic appeal, without being inserted in political contexts, since many ethnographic collections were set up under the colonial model.The discussant of this round table has participated in different experiences of collaborative projects between museums and indigenous peoples. In the latter, an important literature has been produced that discusses these issues both in the field of museology and in anthropology. This academic production has been necessary to seek collaborative forms between indigenous peoples and museums, especially with regard to ethnographic objects and collections. To date, academic production on these issues has shown several significant results and has a great impact on indigenous peoples. These experiences are providing important elements for improving collaboration between museum institutions and indigenous peoples. The debate about these collaborative experiences has led to two interconnected dimensions, which will undoubtedly be part of the discussion and debate in this Round Table: a) Cultural revitalization, seems to be a common concern among the indigenous peoples who participate in these collaborative experiences. These relate to aspects of recovery and documentation on culture, traditions and languages. Ethnographic collections have objects that awaken indigenous peoples and trigger interest in their profound knowledge, especially those that are directly linked to the cultures of indigenous peoples. Local resources, such as oral histories, treasured family heirlooms, traditional stories, dances and songs, native language and contemporary arts, are combined with museum materials to present the vision of a living and vital culture. b) Intercultural collaboration has a guiding role in these relationships, as museums generally exist to preserve heritage and educate the public. These collaborative projects, but Native Americans sometimes object to the way in which museum exhibits appropriate cultural assets. Indigenous peoples demand that the public have access to authentic knowledge of their histories and cultures but believe that some aspects of their cultures should not be shared with strangers. Museum collaborations provide a place where thorny issues of cultural property rights can be addressed and protocols for cultural collaboration can be designed, and accessibility levels decided upon in common. The objective of this roundtable to expand knowledge about these collaborative projects is to demonstrate that this collaboration is increasingly necessary by fostering new partnerships with indigenous peoples, in addition to providing empirical material for academic production at the intersection of anthropology and museology.
12Ethnographies in sports during pandemic times [Commission of Anthropology of Sports]11Luiz Fernando RojoJèrôme SoldaniKaur Tarminder, - Ajeet Jaiswall, Thomas Carter, Lía Ferrero, Susan BronwellSince the beginning of this pandemic, anthropologists around the world have needed to adapt or to change their current methods of investigation to face this situation and continue their activities. In the first moments, almost all professional sports delayed or cancelled their competitions, trainings, and even the Olympic and Paralympic Games were postponed, for the first time in their histories. After what was called the “first wave” of the Covid-19, professional sports resumed their activities, but generally wrapped in security measures which makes face-to-face fieldwork difficult or impossible. On the other hand, leisure and amateur sportive activities were under more or less restrictions from the lockdown and other ways of establishing physical distance. From this context, we have two main aims with this roundtable. The first is to analyze how anthropologists from different backgrounds and areas of interest inside the Anthropology of Sports, confronted this situation, trying to understand the impacts of this pandemic on their investigations, principally but not limited to methodological dimension. The second aim, is to begin a discussion about in which extension the necessary adaptations and innovations to do our fieldwork in pandemic times can inform our future investigations.This IUAES Inter-Congress will be the second to be realized through online. During most of 2020 and probably a great part of 2021, anthropologists around the world not only have participated in these and other kinds of virtual events, but also have needed to adapt or to change their current methods of investigation to face this situation and continue their research activities. In the first part of this pandemic, almost all professional sports delayed or cancelled their competitions, trainings, and even the Olympic and Paralympic Games were postponed, for the first time in their histories. After what was called the “first wave” of the Covid-19, professional sports resumed their activities, but generally wrapped in security measures which made face-to-face fieldwork difficult or impossible. On the other hand, leisure and amateur sportive activities were under more or less restrictions from the lockdown and other ways of establishing physical distance, stipulated by many national and local governments. Although the impacts of this pandemic are being felt in absolutely all areas of Anthropology, the study of sports shares, with just a few other fields, a particular focus on corporality in the case of investigations about athletes and other practitioners, and on collective manifestation from supporters. Both situations are impossible or extremely difficult to be followed by anthropologist in the current time and are not able to have their impacts reduced through online ethnographies. From this context, we have two main aims with this roundtable. The first one is to analyze how anthropologists from different backgrounds and areas of interest inside the Anthropology of Sports, confronted this situation, trying to understand the impacts of this pandemic on their investigations, principally but not limited to methodological dimension. The second aim, which stems from this first one is to begin a discussion about in which extension the necessary adaptations and innovations to do our fieldwork in pandemic times can inform our future investigations. In this way, the focus on alternative methods of research has called the attention of many of us to the uses of netnography and online interviews, among other tools which were already being used by some anthropologists, principally those related to virtual games and other fields associated with online social media. The first question which emerges from it is about the differentiation between our methodology and the techniques of investigation. Is this differentiation still relevant for our current Anthropology of Sports? What are the limits of these virtual (online) investigations in sports, in particular those related to corporal activities? From this, other interesting questions can appear and contribute to new methodological perspectives for our investigations after we will be able to physically go on our fieldwork again.
14The impact of Amerindian digital initiatives. Alternative practices towards the circulation of cultural heritage [Museums and Cultural Heritage]12Stephanie SchützeMáximo FarroKatharina Farys, Luisa Domínguez, Genner Llanes Ortiz, Yásnaya Elena AguilarA geopolitical perspective about cultural heritage shows how Global Northern institutions, National/Local research centers and Amerindian communities have developed around its definition, its preservation and access policies, and its circulation strategies. This asymmetric configuration of unconnected knowledges has led to structural tensions and conflicts. As the result of colonial extractions and postcolonial documentation, material evidences of the diversity of Amerindian cultures and languages were relocated in infrastructures of knowledge such as museums, libraries and archives of central cities in Europe, North America and capital cities of Latin America. These items became regulated by subnational, national or transnational classificatory conventions and legal frameworks, leading to the exclusion of Amerindian Peoples from these processes invisibilizing their distinctive cultural practices and knowledges. In recent times, Amerindian Peoples increasingly claim their rights to gain access to their own cultural heritage. These claims have been followed by the recognition of the cultural rights of Native Peoples (OIT 169 declaration) and the emergence of new practices of claiming, collecting, curating and archiving historical cultural heritage in the digital environment. Digital transformation has increased the pace and speed in which information has historically circulated. As a result, Amerindian Peoples and other social groups such as migrant populations have gained access to restricted cultural heritage giving birth to new sociocultural practices, regimes of value and contested ideas, materialized in local digital initiatives. In this panel we want to discuss through concrete examples the classificatory logics, knowledges and practices that characterize Amerindian Peoples’ digital projects. The final objective of this roundtable is to point out the great diversity of perspectives around Amerindian cultural heritage and to emphasize the communities active contribution for the implementation of collaborative digital initiatives.A geopolitical analysis about cultural heritage shows how Global Northern institutions, National/Local research centers and Amerindian communities have separately developed particular experiences about this matter, producing distinct ways of defining it, diverse modes of preservation and access, as well as different forms of circulation of its expressions. This configuration has resulted in the emergence of a series of unconnected knowledges that had undoubtedly led to structural tension and conflict. As the result of colonial extractions and postcolonial documentation, pieces of evidence of the diversity of Amerindian cultures and languages were relocated in infrastructures of knowledge such as museums, libraries and archives of central cities in Europe, North America and capital cities of Latin America. These items became regulated by subnational, national or transnational classificatory conventions and legal frameworks, leading to the exclusion of Amerindian Peoples from the development of these processes and to the invisibilization of their distinctive cultural practices and knowledges, all of them necessary to give sense to all the decontextualized pieces of evidence distributed in public and private fonds. In recent times, Amerindian Peoples claim more and more their rights to gain access to their historical cultural heritage. These claims have been followed by the recognition of the cultural rights of Native Peoples (OIT 169 declaration) and new practices of claiming, collecting and archiving historical cultural heritage. The digital transformation has impacted the emergent Amerindian Peoples’ practices as much as it has done it to the practices developed in the Global North context establishing new perspectives about the relation between people and cultural heritage. The new arena provided by the digital transformation has transformed also the rhythm and speed in which information has historically circulated. As a result, Amerindian Peoples and other social groups such as migrants have gained access to restricted cultural heritage and the possibility of multiplying the use they give it. New cultural values and ideas have arisen, giving birth to new sociocultural practices around cultural heritage. In this panel we want to discuss through concrete examples the classificatory logics, knowledges and practices that characterize the new information management systems, data curation processes and use of digital technologies that emerge in non-centralized communities, going from the Amerindian communities to migrant groups that recontextualize Amerindian cultural heritage. This reflection seems central for the elaboration of new forms of intercultural encounters around cultural heritage. In this sense, the final objective of this roundtable is to point out the existence of a great diversity of perspectives around the cultural heritage of Amerindian communities and to emphasize the active contribution they offer for the implementation of new collaborative and cogestive digital initiatives.
15Museums and ethnographic collections - Local and global interconnections: from inventories and mappings to participation [Commission of Museum and Cultural Heritage]13Adriana RussiMariana FrançozoRuth Kark, David William Ribeiro, Tone Cecilie Simensen Karlgård, Adriana Muñoz, Renata ValenteEthnographic museums are increasingly being called upon to develop other forms of participation, connections and articulations going beyond their traditional ones. Reviews of ethnography in museums have in fact been going on for decades, however at present new critical questions are being advanced. While these museums continue to have the responsibility for the custody and curation of collections, they also foster studies that reveal the times, spaces, forms and the criteria for collecting and formation of collections, comprising diverse colonial and colonialist visions and practices over centuries, but also reflecting the very transformations that anthropology and museology have undergone. Between institutional histories and contemporary obligations for the study of collections and access, other frameworks emerge through the constitution of diverse networks in order to broaden not only the articulations between institutions, but also the access and the approximations between collections formed in the past and the groups, collectives, socio-cultural segments that are related to them and that have the right to enjoy them in the present. Among the trajectories and biographies of museum objects and collections, another step is taken in this broad and complex context – namely, getting to know and giving access to what is kept in ethnographic museums. These assets need to be "revisited" by researchers and, especially, by interested social groups so that they remain "alive" in the museums where they are located, either in the form of exhibitions, or in the form of dialogue with the peoples from whom the objects came, whether in the form of research, theses, books, films or other. It is also important to highlight the complex processes of defending the rights and territories of certain groups, such as indigenous peoples and other traditional peoples. In this sense, the objectives of this round table are: to reflect on the transit between agents of museums and universities around "ethnographic collections"; to get to know institutional, interinstitutional and (trans) national articulations that are creating inventories and mapping museums and ethnographic collections; to communicate initiatives of articulation between museums, collections and groups, collectives, socio-cultural segments; and to reflect on the networks (and networks of networks) regarding the theoretical and conceptual approach that transcend quantitative data.
16Learning and living nowadays: a round table in honor of Jean Lave [The IUAES Commission on Anthropology and Education]14Julieta Briseño-RoaAna María R. GomesOle Dreier, Ana Padawer, Elsie Rockwell, Lucy Suchman, Olivier GosselainIn at least four decades Jean Lave´s work has influenced many generations of anthropologists, psychologists and educational researchers. Her ideas opened up new perspectives for research on issues of learning and knowledge as situated practices. Her analytic approach to social practice theory, developed throughout her projects, was fundamental for viewing learning in new ways in different contexts. Her retrospective gaze on her own ethnographic work expressed an acute concern not only with the people she has worked with but also regarding her own learning process. This warns us that, as ethnographers, we are all apprentices of our own ongoing practices. The round table intends to gather different views on Jean Lave’s work and influence in many latitudes. Through sharing experiences inspired by Jean´s work, participants of different countries will discuss topics such as learning in everyday life in different rural, urban and indigenous contexts, apprenticeship and social practice social theory, learning across contexts, the new contributions to the concept of communities of practice and the slow science proposal. With the aim of signaling possible new directions in dialogue with Jean Lave herself. For this celebration, we also want to debate and imagine new paths for/with future generations that undertake anthropological and ethnographic work on learning and praxisIn at least four decades Jean Lave´s work has influenced many generations of anthropologists, psychologists and educational researchers. Her ideas opened up new perspectives for research on issues of learning and knowledge as situated practices. Her analytic approach to social practice theory, developed throughout her projects, was fundamental for viewing learning in new ways in different contexts. Her retrospective gaze on her own ethnographic work expressed an acute concern not only with the people she has worked with but also regarding her own learning process. This warns us that, as ethnographers, we are all apprentices of our own ongoing practices. The round table intends to gather different views on Jean Lave’s work and influence in many latitudes. Through sharing experiences inspired by Jean´s work, participants of different countries will discuss topics such as learning in everyday life in different rural, urban and indigenous contexts, apprenticeship and social practice social theory, learning across contexts, the new contributions to the concept of communities of practice and the slow science proposal. With the aim of signaling possible new directions in dialogue with Jean Lave herself. For this celebration, we also want to debate and imagine new paths for/with future generations that undertake anthropological and ethnographic work on learning and praxis
17Museums, ethnographic collections and indigenous peoples: Intercultural dialogue and collaborative museology [Commission of Museum and Cultural Heritage]15Lucia Hussak van VelthemPascale de Robert, Iara FerrazLuciana Martins, João Pacheco de Oliveira, Helena Pinto Lima, Adriana RussiRecently, ethnographic museums have engaged in debates about the collection’s criteria, the formation of collections custody, and collections’ exhibition due, in part, to transformations in anthropology and museology fields. Thus, these new debates about museum collections' trajectories and biographies result in other perspectives about them. The focus of these new perspectives is on accessibility, and in different forms of appropriation. In this context, ethnographic patrimonies are "revisited", especially by indigenous peoples and traditional populations. These populations’ interest is in keeping their heritage "alive" in the museums where their culture is preserved. Also, these actors aim to act positively in the composition of identity narratives. The museums react to these new demands through collaborative experiences and intercultural dialogues with representatives of these cultures, from which the objects originate. Beyond the indigenous people, anthropologists, and museologists are increasingly involved in the museum's fundamental role of promoting cultural diversity and being receptive to indigenous and populations' new demands agenda about highlighting the importance of intercultural dialogue. This intercultural dialogue includes the acknowledgment of socio-political dimensions of ethnographic collections, resulting in a principle for respecting indigenous people’s knowledge and practices toward their gathering, preserving, and exhibit of their cultural heritage. The museums, through programs that sponsor intercultural dialogue, celebrating indigenous people’s agency. Hence, the museology collaborative experiences are important because they promote the (re) appropriation and strength of indigenous and traditional population's action in the process of formulating knowledge and narratives. These works are particularly poignant in exhibition installation, when the indigenous curatorship develops a self-narrative process. Taking into consideration these assumptions, this round table has four objectives. First, to know about initiative concerning the identification and accessibility of Brazilian ethnographic collections. Second, to bring to light effective actions between museums, and Amazon’s indigenous and traditional populations that have resulted in collaborative museology in ethnographic collections. Third, to highlight initiatives that result in shared curatorship and, consequently, new exhibition narratives. Fourth, to evaluate theoretical and conceptual approaches toward the review of exhibition narratives and the consolidation of collaborative works.
18North-South Relations in Anthropology: Shouts, Silences, Patterns, and the Question of Continued Colonialism [WAU (the World Anthropological Union) Steering Committee]16Virginia Rosa DominguezIsaac K Nyamongo, Junji Koizumi, Carmen Silvia de Moraes RialDanilyn Rutherford, Ke Fan, Subhadra Channa, Gustavo Lins Ribeiro, Edward LiebowThis Roundtable will discuss North-South relations in anthropology. It focuses on the state of relations between anthropologists in the traditional North Atlantic anthropological metropoles and those outside that realm. It will also discuss what has changed and what has not changed in those North-South relations in the past 20-30 years. It will consider the Brazilian Anthropological Association's November 2021 Resolution on fieldwork, contacts, research, grants, and citations, the Wenner-Gren Foundation's response to it, and the possibilities of real change at this moment in the anthropological profession. The Roundtable includes 8 speaking participants. They are the three listed as presenting convenors plus Dr. Danilyn Rutherford from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Dr. Subhadra Channa (from the University of Delhi in India), Dr. Fan Ke (from Nanjing University in China), Dr. Gustavo Lins Ribeiro (from UNAM in Mexico), and Dr. Edward Liebow (from the American Anthropological Association). Virginia R. Dominguez will chair. Speakers (including the three co-conveners) will be asked to speak for 7-8 minutes at the beginning of the session. Speakers will then be allowed to ask questions of each other or to argue with each other. Then the Chair will open the virtual floor for questions and critiques from anyone in attendance. The topic is quite important to the profession, so we intend to have speakers from numerous countries but also ample time for discussion. Please note that all named speakers have doctorates in anthropology, and that the two participants not currently affiliated with a university (Danilyn Rutherford and Edward Liebow) are heads or executive directors of major anthropological organizations, and people responsible for their organizations endorsing the Brazilian resolution that is in many ways the focus of, and impetus for, this discussion.
19Preserving and Sharing Indigenous Knowledge Worldwide [IUAES Commission on Documentation]17Mary J HallinPaul Nchoji NkwiMina Rad, Giovanna Guslini, Robert K Hitchcock, Soheila Shahshahani, Paul NkwiThe Commission on Documentation seeks to provide access by scholars worldwide to all forms of scholarly materials -- books, articles, web sites, archives of qualitative and quantitative data. Recently, the Commission has been working on the preservation and archiving of indigenous knowledge and indigenous technologies. This round table explores the pros and cons of the various ways of preserving and sharing indigenous knowledge, including digitization, holograms, written documents, and images (including photos and film). The fire that destroyed the National Museum in Brazil has made clear the importance of digitizing/archiving data/documents quickly in order to preserve indigenous knowledge and technology for the future.
20Latin American Feminist Anthropologies in changing contexts: Theoretical, Ethnographic and Political Challenges [Commission on Global Feminisms and Queer Politics]18Lía FerreroMartha Patricia Castañeda-SalgadoDeborah Daich, Carmen Teresa García, Lina Rosa Berrio-Palomo, Miriam Grossi, Pamela CallaFeminist anthropology has several decades of development in different regions of the world. It arose from the evidence that a) the most recognized anthropological stories had been based, fundamentally, on male experiences, and b) anthropological theories were based on androcentric and ethnocentric perspectives. Throughout its establishment and consolidation, feminist anthropology became a space for dialogue, debate, and controversy between the two perspectives that give it its name, so it soon had to be stated in the plural to account for the plurality of positions generated about the theoretical currents of the discipline and the different feminisms. Today we speak of feminist anthropologies to highlight this plurality and draw attention to the diversity of subjects and problems related to them that are addressed in different latitudes, responding to the needs of knowledge created in the tension between the local and the global. Feminist anthropologies currently developed in Latin America and the Caribbean have contributed to shaping and content to this position's plurality. Hence, the Latin American Anthropology Association's objective in proposing this roundtable is to open a space to take up some of the contemporary concerns of feminist anthropologists and incorporate this reflection within the topics of interest to IUAES Congress. Prominent feminist anthropologists from different generations, sex-gender, ethnic, racial, and class conditions, from different countries, will participate in that boarding: 1. The academic training and young researchers in the instances, universities, and institutions dedicated to anthropological or interdisciplinary research 2. Training and research -in different modalities- in non-academic spaces 3. The formulation and implementation of laws favorable to respect for the rights of women and other gender subjects, as well as the laws of equity, equality, and non-discrimination towards different sex-gender and socio-cultural groups 4. The design, implementation, and evaluation of public policies to promote the advancement of women 5. Activist and artivist feminist spaces The relevance of feminist anthropologies for the theoretical, investigative, applied, and practical development of the anthropological sciences is evident in the growing number of scientific and nonscientific publications in which theoretical elaborations, research results, novel methodologies, and epistemological processes are present, through which one can appreciate the width of the field. At the same time, publications, teaching, and training processes for young researchers are points of access to knowledge - and recognition - of novel thematic approaches, focused on breaking with binary models of gender subjects and lines of research capable of offering suggestive theoretical approaches. The expansion of space-time coordinates and the deployment of ethnographic resources adapted to the changing contexts in contemporary feminist anthropological research goes hand in hand with the opening of non- "traditional" labor options, applied aspects, and practices that face new challenges. Perhaps the most important aspect to highlight regarding the relevance of the theme of the proposed roundtable is the deepening of the critique of androcentrism, ethnocentrism, classism, and racism within anthropological theory and practice, an element common to the feminist anthropologies that will be in dialogue in this space of the congress.
21Audiovisual Ethnographic archives about the Amerindian Hupd’äh and Restitution Issues through the audiovisual creation in a series of documentaries [Commission of Museums and Cultural Heritage (COMACH)]19Rad MinaDanilo Paiva Ramos, Juliana Caruso, Prof. Dr. Felipe Bruno Martins FernandesMariane Pisani, Pedro Lolli, Rafael Moreira Serra da Silva, Isabel OliveiraThis roundtable aims to discuss the methodological and ethical issues related to the restitution of Ethnographic audio-visual archives collected among the Amerindian Hupd’äh by Brazilian anthropologist, Renato Athias. They have brought back to their source communities and also to international audience through a series of documentaries, half a century later. The Hupd’äh are one of 210 Amerindian groups in Brazil. They live in the Uaupés river basin, in the heart of North-West Amazon. In their cosmology, there is no separation between the animal, plant and mineral orders. Music and words have transformative powers. These films have been made representing the cultural heritage of the Hupd’äh knowledge ; cosmology , epistemology, … for a large public. They provide a new approach for debating the relationships between humans and non-humans. It is based on ethnographic notes, sound and footage produced by ethnologist Renato Athias in the 1980s, from his interactions with the Hupd’äh clan chiefs Bihit, Mehtiw and Casimiro – the Masters of Knowledge. In 1972, Renato Athias arrived in the region of the Hupd'äh. Since then, he has continued his ethnological research and taught in Brazilian and European universities. Fifty years later, all these research materials have been digitalized and this audiovisual project have been produced by “World Cultural Diversity” in France in partnership with the Laboratory of Visual Anthropology (LAV) of PPGA / UFPE. It is a collaborative project between an anthropologist, a filmmaker and a specialist in archives about an endangered indigenous group in the Brazilian Amazon. The ethnographic archives, have become the real characters and narrate the life of the Hupd’äh. These films are the real restitution materials for this 2000 Hupd’äh today. It’s a collaboration between temporality past (archives), present and future as well as between two mediums, the written (such as field notebooks) and the visual (films/photos made at the time of the notebooks and those made closer to today). This roundtable explores the ethic use of archive and tries to answer some questions for each expert during the debate: -Remembering Henrique: Songs, Spells and Forest Pathways of the Hupd'äh -Living with the Hupd´äh as a way of constructing relation among original peoples in the Tiquié river. -The pharmacology of the enchanted verbal formulas of the Hupd’äh -How can the archives of the past be used to make the films of today, the films that can become the museum for next generation? -How audio-visual ethnography can serve as a research method ? -How the case study of the Hupd’äh can bring out broader patterns that would be of interest to a more general audience? -How the substance been shown in the documentary? How to bring the emotion of the anthropologist to the audience while he is sharing the archive that has been collected in the field 50 years ago How the anthropological contributions of Renato Athias, "The Hupd´äh longhouses and communities in the Upper Rio Nego. " have been presented in these documentaries?
22Southern Attitudes in Anthropology: critical debates and disciplinary engagements20Yasmeen ArifWillem Van SchendelRaminder Kaur (W-Senior), Annu Jalais (W-young), Teuku Ferdiansyah Thajib (M-young), Gordon Mathew (M-senior), Rhoda Reddock (W-Senior)Anthropology’s legacy as a colonial discipline has been a matter of great debate. The many calls for change recognize how the connection between colonialism and its knowledge production practices affect human sciences at large. These calls impact at both political and heuristic levels – from theory, method and epistemology, to the international division of academic labour, the occupation of positions at associations, professional biographies in different locations etc. Debates that work with the binaries of “center/periphery”, “West/Non-West”, “metropolitan/marginal” have also accompanied those that have questioned the racism, classism, and casteism in academia. The decolonizing efforts that have been underway for more than a decade now interrogate some of these concerns and have posed strong epistemological arguments about power, representation and authorship in anthropology. Within this larger scenario, we intend to facilitate a discussion which engages with the emerging outskirts of Western anthropology and for addressing inequality in knowledge production. Our focus will be on the widely used label “Global South” in these discussions. This ambivalent appellation appears to be a resourceful platform and polysemic concept, as well as a troubling homogenization, while at the same time encompassing longstanding critiques and new claims for how to regain universal relevance to anthropology in a more equitable disciplinary project. The South is referred as both a privileged position from where critically access structural inequalities in the political economy of global knowledge production (Krotz 1997; Uribe 1997; Kwaa Prah 1997; Quinlan 2000; Morin 2009; Krotz 2010 etc); or as a space for alternative forms of knowledge, a geography of epistemic inequality and repositories of knowledge of underprivileged groups and areas. These theoretical, political and heuristic achievements promoted by scholars involved with the World Anthropologies Network (Ribeiro and Escobar2006) and the Southern turn (Santos 1993; Connell 2006, Comaroff & Comaroff 2011), will be the background for our proposal, by reconnecting with an attitudinal anthropological praxis (Fabian 2002). We will focus on the politics of representation from the newer intersection of identities to interactions between behaviors, attitudes and ideologies (Reddock 2019), and epistemological and practical innovations (Arif 2014, 2021), for discussing the potential of Southern attitudes (Ferreira e Pinheiro, 2020; Pinheiro e Levitt 2021) to produce renewed professional ethos in social sciences. The discussion is proposed in two Roundtables addressing how questions of location, generation, life course or positionality are experienced in different academic locations. Discussants are invited to address to a set of questions per panel, mutually decided by the hosts and the participants.
23Southern Attitudes in Anthropology: critical debates and disciplinary engagements 121Claudio PinheiroRhoda ReddockNestor Castro (M-senior), Peggy Levitt (W-senior), Nihan Albayrak-Aymdemir (W-young), Jelle Wouters (M-young), Yasmeen Arif (W-Senior)Anthropology’s legacy as a colonial discipline has been a matter of great debate. The many calls for change recognize how the connection between colonialism and its knowledge production practices affect human sciences at large. These calls impact at both political and heuristic levels – from theory, method and epistemology, to the international division of academic labour, the occupation of positions at associations, professional biographies in different locations etc. Debates that work with the binaries of “center/periphery”, “West/Non-West”, “metropolitan/marginal” have also accompanied those that have questioned the racism, classism, and casteism in academia. The decolonizing efforts that have been underway for more than a decade now interrogate some of these concerns and have posed strong epistemological arguments about power, representation and authorship in anthropology. Within this larger scenario, we intend to facilitate a discussion which engages with the emerging outskirts of Western anthropology and for addressing inequality in knowledge production. Our focus will be on the widely used label “Global South” in these discussions. This ambivalent appellation appears to be a resourceful platform and polysemic concept, as well as a troubling homogenization, while at the same time encompassing longstanding critiques and new claims for how to regain universal relevance to anthropology in a more equitable disciplinary project. The South is referred as both a privileged position from where critically access structural inequalities in the political economy of global knowledge production (Krotz 1997; Uribe 1997; Kwaa Prah 1997; Quinlan 2000; Morin 2009; Krotz 2010 etc); or as a space for alternative forms of knowledge, a geography of epistemic inequality and repositories of knowledge of underprivileged groups and areas. These theoretical, political and heuristic achievements promoted by scholars involved with the World Anthropologies Network (Ribeiro and Escobar2006) and the Southern turn (Santos 1993; Connell 2006, Comaroff & Comaroff 2011), will be the background for our proposal, by reconnecting with an attitudinal anthropological praxis (Fabian 2002). We will focus on the politics of representation from the newer intersection of identities to interactions between behaviors, attitudes and ideologies (Reddock 2019), and epistemological and practical innovations (Arif 2014, 2021), for discussing the potential of Southern attitudes (Ferreira e Pinheiro, 2020; Pinheiro e Levitt 2021) to produce renewed professional ethos in social sciences. The discussion is proposed in two Roundtables addressing how questions of location, generation, life course or positionality are experienced in different academic locations. Discussants are invited to address to a set of questions per panel, mutually decided by the hosts and the participants.
24Human Security, Disadvantaged People and Development: The Emerging Challenges in the Era of Globalization22Buddhadeb ChaudhuriMesbah KamalDorothy K. Billings, James Phillips, Subir BiswasThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a great step to eliminate conflict and establish equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human society, rich or poor, regardless of status, race, religion, colour, sex or political background. Nevertheless, the world has seen barbarous inhumanity. The concept of ‘human security’ has initiated the debate – what ‘security’ means and how to achieve it. The concept has been defined and pursued in different ways by different nation states as a means of reducing the human costs of violent conflicts, as a strategy to enable governments to address basic human needs and offset the inequities of globalization, and as a means to provide social safety nets to impoverished, marginalized people. The discussion on the disarmament-development nexus that took place in various UN forums contributed in the understanding of human security. Besides, a number of Commissions like the Brandt Commission, the Bruntland Commission and the Commission on Global Governance helped to change the focus of security analysis from national and state security to security of the people. The varied notions and concepts of human security initiated an interesting debate. The debate of human security arises from varied perceptions: the western usage reflects the individualistic ethos of liberal democracy which conflicts with the Asian approach to human rights which, as felt by Asian thinkers should cover the different cultural contexts and historical experiences of Asia. Human security calls for a shift of security considering from state security to security of the people, which includes both individuals and communities considering the survival and well-being of all communities. A number of development programmes have been initiated which have varied effects on population. In many places, the development programmes have benefited some while created disruption and displacement for others, particularly for the disadvantaged sections of the population. Displacement of a larger population mostly illiterate and unorganized weaker section in the context of development of the region or nation is very common in most of the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.Since there is displacement of a large section of population, the access and command over natural resources are affected; the survival and security of the people are also affected. One cannot stop exploitation of natural resources but what one is now looking for is how to achieve sustainable development. This may demand a new development strategy with a genuine participatory approach and creating a process of natural resource use which is open, accessible and accountable for the security of the larger population. In fact development is expected to improve the quality of life which is not possible when security is affected for a sizable section of the population.
81Challenges for Southern Anthropologies (South American Associations of Anthropology) [Global Feminisms and Queer Politics]72Patricia BirmanSilvia Hirsch, Betty Anahí Francia Ramos, Lía FerreraBárbara López CastilloThis roundtable brings together the presidents of the Brazilian Association of Anthropology (Prof. Patrícia Birman, ABA), Asociación Uruguaya de Antropología (Profa. Betty Francia), Colegio de Graduados de la República Argentina, (Prof. Silvia Hirsch, CGA), Asociación Latinoamericana de Antropología (Prof. Lía Ferrera, ALA) and the Colegio de Antropólogos y Antropólogas de Chile, (Prof. Barbara Castillo). Our goal is to deepen the discussion on the difficulties that anthropologies made in the " South " have forged in their scientific and historical development. We intend to debate on the situations in which we practice anthropology from the point of view of academic geopolitics. We will also dwell on the state of the art of our disciplines in the current local and global conjunctures in which anthropologists exercise their profession and are targets of specific financing policies and recognition on local and global scales. We want to promote a debate on the state of the art in anthropologies of South America in relation to historical, political and epistemic conditions the hinge upon the anthropologist's profession. Furthermore, we will also focus on how our associations relate to policies of political equity and their relation to processes of globalization.This roundtable brings together the presidents of the Brazilian Association of Anthropology (Prof. Patrícia Birman, ABA), Asociación Uruguaya de Antropología (Profa. Betty Francia), Colegio de Graduados de la República Argentina, (Prof. Silvia Hirsch, CGA), Asociación Latinoamericana de Antropología (Prof. Lía Ferrera, ALA) and the Colegio de Antropólogos y Antropólogas de Chile, (Prof. Barbara Castillo). Our goal is to deepen the discussion on the difficulties that anthropologies made in the " South " have forged in their scientific and historical development. We intend to debate on the situations in which we practice anthropology from the point of view of academic geopolitics. We will also dwell on the state of the art of our disciplines in the current local and global conjunctures in which anthropologists exercise their profession and are targets of specific financing policies and recognition on local and global scales. We want to promote a debate on the state of the art in anthropologies of South America in relation to historical, political and epistemic conditions the hinge upon the anthropologist's profession. Furthermore, we will also focus on how our associations relate to policies of political equity and their relation to processes of globalization.