Search results

AbstractThe mountain of Tindaya (Fuerteventura, Canary Islands) has been surrounded by controversy since the mid‐1990s. It is, at once, a listed indigenous site, a protected natural environment, a mining resource, and the designated location of a monumental intervention by artist Eduardo Chillida, consisting in digging a grand cubic cave in its interior. This article conceptualizes Tindaya as a contentious multiplicity and analyses the mountain's competing enactments. The state's Tindaya is a 'partitioned' mountain, an entity split into different dimensions (cultural and natural; interior and exterior) that can be both legally protected and excavated. In contrast, activists have enacted a 'holistic' mountain, characterized by the inseparability of its multiple 'values' (archaeological, geological, environmental) and the need to protect it as a single whole. These two enactments constitute 'worlding' practices connected to opposing understandings of the relationship between heritage, nature, and the future. For the state, the mountain is an asset to be exploited, an opportunity to bring about prosperous futures fashioned after the spectacular projects of the metropolis. For the activists, Tindaya represents a unique opportunity to rethink the island's development model and to put indigenous heritage and environmental concerns at its centre. Tindaya's unresolved multiplicity is therefore political in the broadest sense: it is a reminder that reality can be otherwise.

More than 25 years after it was unveiled, Eduardo Chillida'sMonument to Tolerancehas been neither built nor abandoned—it is, rather, suspended. From the outset, the project, which consists in digging a vast cubic cave inside the mountain of Tindaya (Fuerteventura, Canary Islands), has faced the opposition of environmental activists, who argue that it is incompatible with the mountain's status as a protected site. Drawing from anthropological approaches to infrastructure and art, this article unpacks the Monument's actual existence as an unrealized project that has been partly actualized through anticipatory practices such as exhibitions and economic aspirations. The article contributes to the theorization of suspension by combining a focus on the temporal multiplicity of anticipation with an attention to the materiality of unbuilt entities.

¿How can we defend today that ethnography's main task is to get closer to reality? ¿How can a postructuralist conscience be combined with an attempt to describe and explain a world "out there"? ¿What is the significance of an anthropology that does not aspire to transform reality? These are some of the questions addressed in this article, drawing on the naturalism-realism debate proposed by manuel delgado (2003) in this journal. A return to a "primitive naturalism" is countered with a "realist" ethnography: flatter (which recognizes each object's singularity and is interested in its relations) and more opaque (which does not aspire to transparency and recognizes texts as mediation). ; ¿Cómo defender Hoy que la tarea primordial de la etnografía es acercarse más a la realidad? ¿Cómo combinar una conciencia posestructuralista con el intento de describir y explicar un mundo "ahí fuera"? ¿Qué sentido tiene una etnografía que no aspire a la transformación de la realidad? Estas son algunas de las cuestiones que este artículo aborda, retomando el debate entre naturalismo y realismo planteado por Manuel Delgado (2003) en esta misma Revista. A la idea de un retorno al "naturalismo primitivo" se contrapone una etnografía "realista": más plana (que reconoce la singularidad de cada objeto y se interesa por sus relaciones) y más oscura (que no aspira a la transparencia y que reconoce el texto como mediación).

This introductory essay conceptually situates the dialogue between Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and Social Movement Studies that this special issue aims to foster. Rather than considering ANT as a theory in the classic sense, we define it as a theoretical sensibility open to permanently redrawing its own shape in response to the relational entanglements it studies. ANT and its sibling, assemblage theory, have allowed scholars to attend to the complex ecologies within which agents, both human and non-human, mobilise to effect change in overlapping social, ecological, economic and technological realms. In these studies, relations take precedence over substances, thereby forging a radically decentred, redistributed approach to mobilisation. As such, ANT offers a point of departure from dominant understandings of social movements that rely on modernist, dualist epistemologies; ANT studies have expanded the body politic through the incorporation of non-human actants, and redefined collective action as a form of association between heterogeneous entities. Ultimately, we argue that ANT is a useful tool in the task of constructing forms of attention and care that aspire to learn from and think with social movements, rather than explaining them away.

Taking his most recent publications on ways to engage with the planet as a point of departure, this conversation with Bruno Latour considers some of the political and conceptual challenges associated with what he calls the New Climate Regime. Latour discusses the need for breaking with the modernist framework that set the stage for the environmental crisis in the first place, and which has also hindered the capacity of social movements to affect the situation. Latour argues that only a new body politic (inclusive of non-humans) and a new geosocial politics (attuned to Gaia) will open up the possibility for sustaining life on our severely damaged planet.