Suchergebnisse

The invitation to become "accomplices, not allies" is a timely and urgent summons to a political left that has recently swelled with renewed vigor. Galvanized to contest the Trump administration, freshly politicized young people and veteran activists alike have a spectrum of options for political engagement—few of which seriously threaten to dismantle broader systems of inequality and injustice. In line with Rosa and Bonilla's call to avoid exceptionalizing Trump in favor of more critical and robust analyses of colonialism, racism, and U.S. statehood, the call to become accomplices urges progressives to avoid the deceptive comfort of allyship, and, instead, to pursue complicity with criminalized communities (2017).

This paper is about the ambiguous relationships between Europe and the Mediterranean as they are revealed in the anthropological studies on modern Greece. Although anthropological understanding is now considered richer when historical knowledge complements fieldwork, this was not the case in the pre-1990s studies, when anthropology stayed away both from social time and from historical and political science research within the country. This paper examines the difference between the native and the non-native points of view in anthropology and claims that this difference is best studied in the context of the post WWII world order, where the 'western' model dominated unhindered in the 'free world', creating inequalities between center and periphery. The ethnography of Greece brings out problems of method related to cultural distance between observer and observed in a European context, where this distance is less explicit. While many studies have focused on the paradox of Greece's incomplete inclusion in the West, the opposite question has now to be dealt with: is the 'western' ethnographer 'at home' in Greece? How is one to define what distinguishes the ethnographer's world from the world where the observed belong?

This paper is about the ambiguous relationships between Europe and the Mediterranean as they are revealed in the anthropological studies on modern Greece. Although anthropological understanding is now considered richer when historical knowledge complements fieldwork, this was not the case in the pre-1990s studies, when anthropology stayed away both from social time and from historical and political science research within the country. This paper examines the difference between the native and the non-native points of view in anthropology and claims that this difference is best studied in the context of the post WWII world order, where the 'western' model dominated unhindered in the 'free world', creating inequalities between center and periphery. The ethnography of Greece brings out problems of method related to cultural distance between observer and observed in a European context, where this distance is less explicit. While many studies have focused on the paradox of Greece's incomplete inclusion in the West, the opposite question has now to be dealt with: is the 'western' ethnographer 'at home' in Greece? How is one to define what distinguishes the ethnographer's world from the world where the observed belong?

This paper is about the ambiguous relationships between Europe and the Mediterranean as they are revealed in the anthropological studies on modern Greece. Although anthropological understanding is now considered richer when historical knowledge complements fieldwork, this was not the case in the pre-1990s studies, when anthropology stayed away both from social time and from historical and political science research within the country. This paper examines the difference between the native and the non-native points of view in anthropology and claims that this difference is best studied in the context of the post WWII world order, where the 'western' model dominated unhindered in the 'free world', creating inequalities between center and periphery. The ethnography of Greece brings out problems of method related to cultural distance between observer and observed in a European context, where this distance is less explicit. While many studies have focused on the paradox of Greece's incomplete inclusion in the West, the opposite question has now to be dealt with: is the 'western' ethnographer 'at home' in Greece? How is one to define what distinguishes the ethnographer's world from the world where the observed belong?

In 2004, the authors convened a session entitled 'Public Anthropology' at the Australian Anthropology Society's annual conference. The session examined the development of a specific stream of public anthropology in the USA and Britain and its articulation by writers such as Robert Borofsky in the aftermath of the Yanomami controversy and Richard Werbner in the African context. In pursuing this discussion, we identify three key characteristics that distinguish public anthropology: the broader application of ethnography to urgent and political social issues in a way that shows the profoundly relational nature of current crises to historical, political and local events and forces; a focus on this approach as a central aspect of training, particularly at the postgraduate level; and an active and accessible engagement in public discussion and debate. We present a short case study from Skidmore's research on disease, suffering and the health system in Burma to illustrate ways in which a public anthropology approach could represent the current health crisis in Burma in an effective manner. Drawing also on the work of our fellow panellists, we argue for the timeliness of the development of a public anthropology stream in Australia and for the deliberate inclusion of public anthropology in the Australian Anthropology Society's mandate.

In 2004, the authors convened a session entitled 'Public Anthropology' at the Australian Anthropology Society's annual conference. The session examined the development of a specific stream of public anthropology in the USA and Britain and its articulation by writers such as Robert Borofsky in the aftermath of the Yanomami controversy and Richard Werbner in the African context. In pursuing this discussion, we identify three key characteristics that distinguish public anthropology: the broader application of ethnography to urgent and political social issues in a way that shows the profoundly relational nature of current crises to historical, political and local events and forces; a focus on this approach as a central aspect of training, particularly at the postgraduate level; and an active and accessible engagement in public discussion and debate. We present a short case study from Skidmore's research on disease, suffering and the health system in Burma to illustrate ways in which a public anthropology approach could represent the current health crisis in Burma in an effective manner. Drawing also on the work of our fellow panellists, we argue for the timeliness of the development of a public anthropology stream in Australia and for the deliberate inclusion of public anthropology in the Australian Anthropology Society's mandate.

This article is part of an international forum on raceand racism published by the Journal of Anthropological Sciences and edited by Alan Goodman of the New Hampshire College (USA). The paper presents an overview of the use and meaning of the term "human race" among Italian scholars, both on the biological and cultural side, in a historical perspective. The theme is also contextualized with respect to political and social current events.

International audience ; Review Article Duijzings, Ger. *Religion and the politics of identity in Kosovo*. London: Hurst & New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Trix, Frances. *Spiritual discourse: learning with an Islamic master*. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (Conduct and Communication Series), 1993.

International audience ; Review Article Duijzings, Ger. *Religion and the politics of identity in Kosovo*. London: Hurst & New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Trix, Frances. *Spiritual discourse: learning with an Islamic master*. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (Conduct and Communication Series), 1993.

The paper presents the case of "Rocco", who at 50 years old, lost his employment as Senior lecturer and now teaches precariously at three universities in the Czech Republic (two state and one private). Through the Rocco's narration we look at the transformation of the Czech academic system at the turn of the millennium and at the acceptance of the Neoliberal ideology even among those academics associated with the sectors of philology and anthropology. The making light of the case of Rocco would be a good example of "Personal is Political" especially if we consider the political background of the respondent and his decision to reject politics when he started his academic career.

In this paper I reflect upon the difference "stages", appellations, and roles I went through during my fieldwork in Botiza, a village situated in the North-western part of Romania. The village has developed a form of locally managed rural tourism since 1994. My fieldwork coincided with a period of transformation, in which there were very few tourists and local tourism politics were hardly developed, through a period of exponential growth in tourism demand between 1995 and 2001. Both the populace and the administration have had to review local social dynamics, in order to organise the village and deal with the increasing tourism demand.I was particularly interested in tourist-local interaction. I observed that whilst the impact of change is present in politics and in practises of tourism, it is not recognized in the narratives. Having lived for a long time with a family in Botiza that hosts tourists, I observed the everyday practices of the hosts and, at a certain times, I, the ethnographer, played a part in the context I was observing. Far from home and alone I entered local houses and met people, being named each time "the guest", "the sister", "the friend", "the teacher", "the tourist", "the stranger", "the easy girl". The very first question I was always asked was "Married or not?" The extent to which I was rejected or accepted according to the context or/and the information brought me inside my research and formed part of my fieldwork experience.

Exploring the concept of ethnographic vacillation which Hage identifies as a "state of constant movement between political participation and analytical observation" (Hage 2009), this paper aims at tackling the following questions: how does one write the (political) emotions into one's ethnographic work? Should one do that at all? When does one stop being an engaged anthropologist and become a political activist with some knowledge of anthropology? And furthermore, to what extent should anthropologists even get engaged with the politics? In an attempt to answer these questions, I will critically examine my own position as an engaged anthropologist turned politician, following the notion that when one's solely observant participation reaches a point at which the anthropologist deems it as - not enough, (s)he is welcome and often obliged to engage.

The status of the concept of race in modern biological anthropology is not clear. While in some countries (e.g. in the USA, Australia and most of Western Europe) the majority of biological anthropologists favour the nonracial approach to the study of human variation, in others (e.g., China and most of Eastern Europe), racial approach, both populational and typological, is still utilized. In addition to the fact that human variation is a complex subject and almost by its very nature lends itself to different interpretations, it has been shown in a number of studies that the ways in which human biological variation is conceptualised is highly dependent on the socio-political context and the way the anthropological community is functioning within this broader framework. This study reports the results of a questionnaire based survey focusing on the attitudes of Serbian biological anthropologists towards the concept of race. It was found that the majority of respondents still accept the race concept. It is hypothesized that this is for a variety of reasons, including the development of the discipline in relative isolation from the centres of excellence in bio-anthropological research, lack of appropriate academic infrastructure and research funding. Further research, including surveys of academic communities in other countries and research traditions might throw more light on the elusive subject of the status of the concept of race in biological anthropology.

In recent years, a number of humanities scholars have called for event-driven ethnographies of the particular as a tactic to mitigate the flattening of other people's everyday lives, thoughts, and purposes, which has been so frequently represented in literature. What "messiness," what oddities have been omitted from accounts that generalize about entire communities based upon a researcher's few interactions with a few interlocutors? The following essay is an experimental attempt to tell a story from fieldnotes and recollections dating to the mid-1970s when I undertook 45 months of dissertation research among Tabwa people in what is now southeastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. At many steps along this quirky narrative path, contingent truths are at play based upon what I understand to have been my Tabwa interlocutors' ways of understanding such experiences—with the past tense here suggesting that an "ethnographic present" must be dated, especially given the turbulence of Congolese histories these last decades. Endnotes provide glimpses of Tabwa thinking, again based upon my sameday written records and after-the-fact memories of what a few particular people told me. I offer these in quite deliberate defiance of the standard editorial caveat that notes are not meant to be a parallel text: in this case, they are! Furthermore, my essay has no firm conclusion, no wrap-up, no convenient understanding. Instead, readers are invited to consider circumstances that struck me as unusual as they occurred, and to draw their own conclusions about how to understand the events and persons so described, including the anthropologist.

In recent years evolutionary theorists have been engaged in a protracted and bitter disagreement concerning how natural selection affects units such as genes, individuals, kin groups, and groups. Central to this debate has been whether selective pressures affecting group success can trump the selective pressures that confer advantage at the individual level. In short, there has been a debate about the utility of group selection, with noted theorist Steven Pinker calling the concept useless for the social sciences. We surveyed 175 evolutionary anthropologists to ascertain where they stood in the debate. We found that most were receptive to group selection, especially in the case of cultural group selection. The survey also revealed that liberals and conservatives, and males and females, all displayed significant differences of opinion concerning which selective forces were important in humanity's prehistory. We conclude by interpreting these findings in the context of recent research in political psychology.