At a time of heightened focus on nationalisms across the globe, including hybrid formations uniting various social institutions with political factions, Michael Herzfeld’s Subversive archaism: Troubling traditionalists and the politics of national heritage provides a lens shift through which to capture the dynamic intersecting aspects of tradition, heritage, and state authority. The focal length of Herzfeld’s theoretical lens offers a clear perspective on conceptions of belonging and political tension that does not compress issues of marginality, civility, and bureaucracy; rather it brings them into sharp focus through portraits of communities who question and subvert the status quo forms of political authority they live with and in daily. In providing these richmultisited ethnographic observations, combined with archival interventions, about the embodied and lived experiences of nationalisms and heritage negotiation, Herzfeld unapologetically offers us a masterful comparative anthropological reframing in the ongoing study of nation-states. Herzfeld draws us into a tale of an adaptive structure of political change and possibility, one akin, in some respects, to what I have encountered in a far different political climate and context in the United States among the Reactive Orthodox Christian movement (Riccardi-Swartz 2022). I reflect upon Herzfeld’s book as an anthropologist of religion and politics who works on globally connected networks of Orthodox Christianity and religio-political nationalism in the United States. My goal here is not to recapitulate Herzfeld’s theories and ideas, but rather
{"title":"Trad nationalist a/effects","authors":"Sarah Riccardi‐Swartz","doi":"10.1086/725203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725203","url":null,"abstract":"At a time of heightened focus on nationalisms across the globe, including hybrid formations uniting various social institutions with political factions, Michael Herzfeld’s Subversive archaism: Troubling traditionalists and the politics of national heritage provides a lens shift through which to capture the dynamic intersecting aspects of tradition, heritage, and state authority. The focal length of Herzfeld’s theoretical lens offers a clear perspective on conceptions of belonging and political tension that does not compress issues of marginality, civility, and bureaucracy; rather it brings them into sharp focus through portraits of communities who question and subvert the status quo forms of political authority they live with and in daily. In providing these richmultisited ethnographic observations, combined with archival interventions, about the embodied and lived experiences of nationalisms and heritage negotiation, Herzfeld unapologetically offers us a masterful comparative anthropological reframing in the ongoing study of nation-states. Herzfeld draws us into a tale of an adaptive structure of political change and possibility, one akin, in some respects, to what I have encountered in a far different political climate and context in the United States among the Reactive Orthodox Christian movement (Riccardi-Swartz 2022). I reflect upon Herzfeld’s book as an anthropologist of religion and politics who works on globally connected networks of Orthodox Christianity and religio-political nationalism in the United States. My goal here is not to recapitulate Herzfeld’s theories and ideas, but rather","PeriodicalId":51608,"journal":{"name":"Hau-Journal of Ethnographic Theory","volume":"92 1","pages":"218 - 222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79607144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The mummy of the Altaian Princess is one of the best-known cases of repatriation of human remains in Russia. Drawing on a comparative ethnography of two Siberian museums that conserved her body before and after the return, this article approaches the museums as arenas of affective relations to heritage and as key sites of the enactment of heritage social values. It unpacks the museums’ politics in the Princess’s display to show how and why some affective relations are transformed into “front values” available to audiences, while others remain on the back stage of museum life. It also argues for a more symmetrical approach to sending and receiving museums, which provides important nuances to the analyses of repatriation in terms of power structures and colonial legacies.
{"title":"From a museum of Others to a museum of Selves","authors":"K. Pimenova","doi":"10.1086/725428","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725428","url":null,"abstract":"The mummy of the Altaian Princess is one of the best-known cases of repatriation of human remains in Russia. Drawing on a comparative ethnography of two Siberian museums that conserved her body before and after the return, this article approaches the museums as arenas of affective relations to heritage and as key sites of the enactment of heritage social values. It unpacks the museums’ politics in the Princess’s display to show how and why some affective relations are transformed into “front values” available to audiences, while others remain on the back stage of museum life. It also argues for a more symmetrical approach to sending and receiving museums, which provides important nuances to the analyses of repatriation in terms of power structures and colonial legacies.","PeriodicalId":51608,"journal":{"name":"Hau-Journal of Ethnographic Theory","volume":"73 1","pages":"159 - 178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80023920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the phenomenon of migration in India’s villages. Drawing on research in Jharkhand and Maharashtra and selected village ethnographies it illustrates how migration shapes village histories, politics, and socialities. It presents a synoptic analysis of the dominant sociological and anthropological theories concerning the category “village” in India to reflect critically on the absence of a comprehensive framework that captures the intricacies of village life and sociality engendered by migration. Migration narratives enfold lived experiences of caste, class, kinship, and gender that betray the sense of community and assuredness associated with the category “village.” In this context, I propose “mistrust” as an appropriate concept to grasp the contemporariness of India’s villages.
{"title":"Migration, village sociality, and mistrust","authors":"Ritambhara Hebbar","doi":"10.1086/725322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725322","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the phenomenon of migration in India’s villages. Drawing on research in Jharkhand and Maharashtra and selected village ethnographies it illustrates how migration shapes village histories, politics, and socialities. It presents a synoptic analysis of the dominant sociological and anthropological theories concerning the category “village” in India to reflect critically on the absence of a comprehensive framework that captures the intricacies of village life and sociality engendered by migration. Migration narratives enfold lived experiences of caste, class, kinship, and gender that betray the sense of community and assuredness associated with the category “village.” In this context, I propose “mistrust” as an appropriate concept to grasp the contemporariness of India’s villages.","PeriodicalId":51608,"journal":{"name":"Hau-Journal of Ethnographic Theory","volume":"82 1-2 1","pages":"68 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77853044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses the possibilities and limitations of digital creative methods developed by the author in response to lockdown and social distancing regulations. Building on prepandemic research, the analysis focuses on remote fieldwork in 2020 and 2021 with a small number of migrant women who live in Northern Ireland. It zooms in on three interlocutors and shows how long-distance painting, online walking interviews, and photo diaries have not only offered the opportunity for virtual “hanging out” and the development of long-term field relations, but have also been crucial to the visualization and discussion of emerging research themes. The main argument is that the three exploratory methods, used in this case to investigate the embodied experiences and aspirations of migrants during the ongoing pandemic, are potentially relevant to a wide range of pandemic and postpandemic research projects.
{"title":"Ethnography as creative improvisation","authors":"M. Svašek","doi":"10.1086/725341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725341","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the possibilities and limitations of digital creative methods developed by the author in response to lockdown and social distancing regulations. Building on prepandemic research, the analysis focuses on remote fieldwork in 2020 and 2021 with a small number of migrant women who live in Northern Ireland. It zooms in on three interlocutors and shows how long-distance painting, online walking interviews, and photo diaries have not only offered the opportunity for virtual “hanging out” and the development of long-term field relations, but have also been crucial to the visualization and discussion of emerging research themes. The main argument is that the three exploratory methods, used in this case to investigate the embodied experiences and aspirations of migrants during the ongoing pandemic, are potentially relevant to a wide range of pandemic and postpandemic research projects.","PeriodicalId":51608,"journal":{"name":"Hau-Journal of Ethnographic Theory","volume":"10 1","pages":"101 - 127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87122870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What does it mean to subvert a system? The subversive often entails a sense of the insurgent; to subvert is to attempt to overthrow. But, unlike the actions of the belligerent, the subversive acts from within the system. Legal regimes have been attuned to this distinction between subversion and belligerence, labeling the former as a betrayal and the latter as an act of war. While subversion is not war (though it can be war on the cheap), it doesn’t mean that leniency is afforded to the subversive. Among the forms of punishment for engaging in subversive acts in various US criminal statutes is the denial of a burial in a national cemetery (38CFR § 3.903). The specter of subversion has been critical in the development of national security states and forms of criminalization and illegalization, as well as moral panics. In the anthropology of the state, the subversive, when it appears, emerges primarily as a discourse about discourse, about the ways in which “subversive actors” and “acts of subversion” serve to legitimize forms of state violence and its projects of illegalization (Caldeira 2000; Andersson 2014).Within this same literature there exists a counterarchive of subversion. Here, the subversive is attached to modes of “insurgent citizenship” or an “art of not being governed” (Holston 2007; Scott 2010). Subversion is one of the “weapons of the weak” in the arsenal of the marginal, a modality through which subaltern citizens resist the state. The story of the subversive, then, is a story of these two scales, the view from the state ormodes of resistance and rejection from below.
{"title":"Scales of subversion","authors":"J. Dua","doi":"10.1086/725204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725204","url":null,"abstract":"What does it mean to subvert a system? The subversive often entails a sense of the insurgent; to subvert is to attempt to overthrow. But, unlike the actions of the belligerent, the subversive acts from within the system. Legal regimes have been attuned to this distinction between subversion and belligerence, labeling the former as a betrayal and the latter as an act of war. While subversion is not war (though it can be war on the cheap), it doesn’t mean that leniency is afforded to the subversive. Among the forms of punishment for engaging in subversive acts in various US criminal statutes is the denial of a burial in a national cemetery (38CFR § 3.903). The specter of subversion has been critical in the development of national security states and forms of criminalization and illegalization, as well as moral panics. In the anthropology of the state, the subversive, when it appears, emerges primarily as a discourse about discourse, about the ways in which “subversive actors” and “acts of subversion” serve to legitimize forms of state violence and its projects of illegalization (Caldeira 2000; Andersson 2014).Within this same literature there exists a counterarchive of subversion. Here, the subversive is attached to modes of “insurgent citizenship” or an “art of not being governed” (Holston 2007; Scott 2010). Subversion is one of the “weapons of the weak” in the arsenal of the marginal, a modality through which subaltern citizens resist the state. The story of the subversive, then, is a story of these two scales, the view from the state ormodes of resistance and rejection from below.","PeriodicalId":51608,"journal":{"name":"Hau-Journal of Ethnographic Theory","volume":"21 1","pages":"209 - 212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80362912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In addition to tradition, Weber goes on to list three other bases of legitimacy: “affectual,” “value-rational,” and “legal.” It is not clear if Weber meant this to be a ranked list, but the way he elaborates on tradition a few sentences later suggests that he intended it to come first. According to Weber, tradition is a powerful source of legitimacy because it achieves the pinnacle of what Paul Kockelman and Andrew Carruthers might call two kinds of “moreness.” For Weber, tradition is so secure in its moreness that he even ascribes it an “est” and a “most” (that is,
{"title":"Is subversion just another version of state aversion? Notes on Herzfeld’s Subversive archaism","authors":"Erik Harms","doi":"10.1086/725205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725205","url":null,"abstract":"In addition to tradition, Weber goes on to list three other bases of legitimacy: “affectual,” “value-rational,” and “legal.” It is not clear if Weber meant this to be a ranked list, but the way he elaborates on tradition a few sentences later suggests that he intended it to come first. According to Weber, tradition is a powerful source of legitimacy because it achieves the pinnacle of what Paul Kockelman and Andrew Carruthers might call two kinds of “moreness.” For Weber, tradition is so secure in its moreness that he even ascribes it an “est” and a “most” (that is,","PeriodicalId":51608,"journal":{"name":"Hau-Journal of Ethnographic Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"213 - 217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75347514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses two distinct notions of harm, wakllichishka and oil harm, and two distinct ways of shaping bodies. Following postcolonial and decolonial insights, I develop an approach that deploys two Indigenous concepts—wakllichishka, and not being able to see the diagnosis—as valid tools of analysis. Kichwa people in northern Peruvian Amazonia use both to analyze the condition of being harmed, illness, and the possibility of recovering. While wakllichishka rests on understandings and practices that assume that bodies are transformable and the locus of human and more-than-human sociality and agency, not being able to see the diagnosis reveals how biomedical and toxicological practices enact bodies as indicators of unspecific conditions and environmental degradation, and as incurable. Using Kichwa analytics shows the situatedness of these practices and counteracts a common disposition to undertake a colonizing reduction that defines our own categories as the only ones adequate for analysis of the consequences of extractive capitalism.
{"title":"Unable to see the diagnosis","authors":"M. A. Guzmán-Gallegos","doi":"10.1086/725342","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725342","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses two distinct notions of harm, wakllichishka and oil harm, and two distinct ways of shaping bodies. Following postcolonial and decolonial insights, I develop an approach that deploys two Indigenous concepts—wakllichishka, and not being able to see the diagnosis—as valid tools of analysis. Kichwa people in northern Peruvian Amazonia use both to analyze the condition of being harmed, illness, and the possibility of recovering. While wakllichishka rests on understandings and practices that assume that bodies are transformable and the locus of human and more-than-human sociality and agency, not being able to see the diagnosis reveals how biomedical and toxicological practices enact bodies as indicators of unspecific conditions and environmental degradation, and as incurable. Using Kichwa analytics shows the situatedness of these practices and counteracts a common disposition to undertake a colonizing reduction that defines our own categories as the only ones adequate for analysis of the consequences of extractive capitalism.","PeriodicalId":51608,"journal":{"name":"Hau-Journal of Ethnographic Theory","volume":"129 4 1","pages":"194 - 208"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81128239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article centers on a close reading of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Remarks on Frazer’s The golden bough, showing how Wittgenstein’s Remarks offer a prescient view of anthropology. More than a critique of Frazerian evolutionism, the Remarks sit on the vertiginous edge of anthropological and philosophical interest, opening onto questions like: “what are the limits of thought?” and “how do we learn something new?” This article deepens an understanding of the Remarks by examining moments at which they reconsider Wittgenstein’s own prior work, namely the Tractatus logico-philosophicus. By contextualizing the Remarks in a broader movement of thought—one that spans, fissures, and connects what are conventionally isolated as Wittgenstein’s “early” and “late” work—it explores an isomorphism suggested by the Remarks between what Wittgenstein calls “philosophical” and anthropological “problems.” In doing so this article presents, and enacts, a version of Wittgenstein’s thought that might serve as a compelling, albeit mercurial, exemplar for anthropological inquiry.
{"title":"The logic of magic","authors":"Marcus McGee","doi":"10.1086/725383","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725383","url":null,"abstract":"This article centers on a close reading of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Remarks on Frazer’s The golden bough, showing how Wittgenstein’s Remarks offer a prescient view of anthropology. More than a critique of Frazerian evolutionism, the Remarks sit on the vertiginous edge of anthropological and philosophical interest, opening onto questions like: “what are the limits of thought?” and “how do we learn something new?” This article deepens an understanding of the Remarks by examining moments at which they reconsider Wittgenstein’s own prior work, namely the Tractatus logico-philosophicus. By contextualizing the Remarks in a broader movement of thought—one that spans, fissures, and connects what are conventionally isolated as Wittgenstein’s “early” and “late” work—it explores an isomorphism suggested by the Remarks between what Wittgenstein calls “philosophical” and anthropological “problems.” In doing so this article presents, and enacts, a version of Wittgenstein’s thought that might serve as a compelling, albeit mercurial, exemplar for anthropological inquiry.","PeriodicalId":51608,"journal":{"name":"Hau-Journal of Ethnographic Theory","volume":"48 1","pages":"21 - 38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82871428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The recent anthropological focus on “ordinary ethics” emerges out of a concern to attend to the ethical aspect of social action that is intrinsic to the human condition. Ethnographic and theoretical contributions to this literature have drawn on a variety of philosophical approaches to the study of the “everyday” and the forms that ethical practice takes therein. However, a world affected by the COVID-19 pandemic is far from the “everyday” that is the domain of ordinary ethics and calls for a reconceptualization of the ethical, which could provide coordinates of meaningful interaction in the unfamiliar social. In this “uncanny” world, I seek to explore the layered meanings of care and its implications for an ethics of the uncanny. While the uncanny is an epistemological condition of modernity itself, the alteration brought about by the pandemic makes it ontologically uncanny too. Locked in a cyclical relationship, the uncanny and the everyday inexorably follow the other, making it imperative to conceptualize an ethics that can accommodate the singularities of both.
{"title":"Uncanny ethics","authors":"Sumbul Farah","doi":"10.1086/725343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725343","url":null,"abstract":"The recent anthropological focus on “ordinary ethics” emerges out of a concern to attend to the ethical aspect of social action that is intrinsic to the human condition. Ethnographic and theoretical contributions to this literature have drawn on a variety of philosophical approaches to the study of the “everyday” and the forms that ethical practice takes therein. However, a world affected by the COVID-19 pandemic is far from the “everyday” that is the domain of ordinary ethics and calls for a reconceptualization of the ethical, which could provide coordinates of meaningful interaction in the unfamiliar social. In this “uncanny” world, I seek to explore the layered meanings of care and its implications for an ethics of the uncanny. While the uncanny is an epistemological condition of modernity itself, the alteration brought about by the pandemic makes it ontologically uncanny too. Locked in a cyclical relationship, the uncanny and the everyday inexorably follow the other, making it imperative to conceptualize an ethics that can accommodate the singularities of both.","PeriodicalId":51608,"journal":{"name":"Hau-Journal of Ethnographic Theory","volume":"8 1","pages":"82 - 100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80489942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：