Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality,
and to see the links to virtual rooms.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Aleksandar Boskovic
(Institute of Archaeology)
Salma Siddique (Connecticut College)
Send message to Convenors
- Stream:
- Who Speaks and for Whom?
- Sessions:
- Wednesday 31 March, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
Why do people do what they do? remains the crucial question for anthropology and the social sciences today. The question was formulated by Holý and Stuchlik. The panel will look into ways of understanding human interactions in a comparative perspective, especially related to 'world anthropologies'.
Long Abstract:
What does globalization of anthropology (both epistemologically and in an organizational sense) mean for our discipline? Does it help answer some key questions? Or understanding of human behaviour? Why do people do what they do? Are human beings rational? Do they believe their own actions to be rational? Or do they perceive other's actions as rational? And what is the role of rationality in understanding human behaviour? This is a complex issue that has profound influence on both methodology of social sciences and, more importantly, ways in which we (as scholars, but also as members of the public) explain the behaviour of particular actors in a social arena. This can have relevance to patterns of behavior in the political and social contexts (for example, when voting), intercultural communication (increasingly relevant in the world of increased cultural hybridity, and especially with large movements of population that we are witnessing since 2015), or in processes of setting up different economic or social policies (that go along with the major shifts in political and cultural relations on a global scale). How does intervening into other cultures shape both others' and our own understanding? How is one going to interpret individual and collective ways in which societies and individuals negotiate the emerging world of political instability and global risks? These questions are of special relevance today, and we hope to explore them through perspectives from different and heterogeneous research traditions.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Wednesday 31 March, 2021, -Maryam Pirdehghan (University of Zurich)
Paper short abstract:
The study is focused on environmental policies for Lake Baikal in Siberia. I discuss how the shakiness of policies has led to the creation of a sense of "transforming home" and irresponsibility among the Buryats, culminating in the collapse of their collective memory of the sanctity of the lake.
Paper long abstract:
This study examines the reaction of the Buryat indigenous society on Olkhon Island to the recent environmental problems in Sacred Lake Baikal. This sacred lake has been fundamental in shamanic thought and the main economic source for this Mongolian ethnic group over several centuries in Siberia. However, despite its key role in the Buryats' daily life and importance as a cultural and environmental heritage, UNESCO has reported that the lake's ecosystem is under significant stress, and the national news is discussing the debilitating effects of environmental phenomena on the lake. Surprisingly, despite a high volume of scientific research on this problem, there has been no serious concentration on its cultural-religious effects on local people's lives.They are followers of shamanism which is a nature-based religion and the foundation of the Buryats' identity and their society's internalized order. By focusing on this absence, I provide anthropological insight into organizational "not seeing," which is linked to a long history of environmental policies, from Stalin's idea of "the conquest of nature" to Putine's "national security." Then, by investigating public media programs and reports on Russian national TV and in local newspapers, I demonstrate the collapse of the Buryats' collective memory of the sanctity of this natural landscape. Finally, I conclude the shaky environmental policies have resulted in a sense of "transforming home" among Olkhon's Buryats, leaving them with a semantic change in their religious life, and diminishing the sense of responsibility in the Buryat society towards the lake.
Orietta Marquina Vega (Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP))
Paper short abstract:
Contemporary art curators say Painting is an old fashion art that does not match contemporary subjectivities. However, Covid Pandemia has shown our need to dwell the world to exist. Painting is a way for artists to dwell the world. Why they should stop painting? The personal is political.
Paper long abstract:
Contemporary art curators have put art painters today facing a dilemma. To exist and be recognized as artists, we must make artworks which must either response to social problems and demands of social justice or to a novelty nobody or very few people understand. They say painting is an old fashion art manifestation based on artist's subjectivity. Who cares about that! It doesn't match contemporary subjectivities. That is an individual and selfish manifestation of artist's ego unless they show the social or the newest. However, Pandemia has shown that our strength as humankind is our personal awareness and commitment to daily life making this world livable. Once again, the personal is political.
What matters in arts is a subjectivity talking to another subjectivity to produce an affection. What is subjectivity, but society´s trace on a self or being? As an artist my responsibility is to affect someone at his/her daily life. Affecting others, arts question his/her boundaries of what is possible/no possible to accept as human beings living "in the one-world we all inhabit" (Ingold, 2018, p. 158). Doing so, arts affects also transform my daily live into daily existence. It doesn´t matter if I use painting, video or whatever. The contemporary is a way of relating to the times we live in, not with a material or an artistic technique.
Maria Stoicescu (University of Bucharest)
Paper short abstract:
This paper seeks to explore the dominant temporal orientations for digital dating on Tinder. The paper discusses the changing dating expectations and norms of intimacy for Tinder users. The focus of the paper is on the behavioral temporal patterns that result from such digital romantic interactions.
Paper long abstract:
Dating apps are increasingly used for meeting new potential partners and have become a battlefield for identifying compatible others. Tinder, one most used dating apps of the moment, answers a wide variety of user goals. From long-term connections to casual encounters, entertainment, validation, or socialization, users develop and manifest interaction objectives that are shaped by the capabilities of the app. Drawn by a soulmate seeking or erotic storyline, users adhere to the dating directives presented by the platform. They evaluate, select, chat, and meet other users to attain their dating goals. The Tinder interaction cycle is usually repetitive, quantitative, and presents a distinct temporality. By using the concept of time work (Flaherty, 2003), I analyze users’ dominant temporal orientations and configurations for digital dating on Tinder. The findings show that Tinder is a digital platform that incentivizes a specific temporal structure for intimate relationships. The Tinder-encouraged temporal structure is focused on the initial stages of the relationship, especially on partner seeking and fine-tuning the first date stages. For business reasons and through technological affordances, Tinder users are indirectly stimulated to persist in exploration and search. As a result, users experience short-term relationships and hookups more frequently. These interaction patterns result in the normalization of this type of engagement, thus changing the expectations and norms of intimacy for Tinder users.