Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Katherine Smith
(University of Manchester)
Ana Carolina Balthazar (University College London)
Send message to Convenors
- Discussant:
-
Jeanette Edwards
(University of Manchester)
- Format:
- Panel
Short Abstract:
Are analytical approaches to lives in Britain affected when we are situated within and directly influenced by the same political structures that are explored ethnographically? This panel explores the anthropologist’s emotional/political/moral standpoints in the field and the dissemination of work.
Long Abstract:
With growing tensions around the rise of neo-nationalisms and the illiberal consequences for everyday lives in the UK, this panel addresses how anthropologists in/of Britain may feel compelled to reposition themselves in their ethnographies as political-cum-moral actors who either align or disagree with one’s interlocutors. We ask, to what extent are analytical approaches to other lives in Britain affected when we, as anthropologists are institutionally situated within, and are directly influenced by the same political structures that are being explored ethnographically? How different might this situation be from the kinds of pressures that anthropologists of other regions face, and how has this pressure affected the conceptual imagination that is put forward by anthropologists of Britain? To what extent are anthropologists in/of Britain expected to demonstrate that we are “strangers” to ourselves (Kristeva 1991)?
Rather than rehashing old debates about an “anthropology at home”, we expand upon existing arguments about the “fundamental difference between the logic of intellectual inquiry and the logic of politics” (Hage 2010) and about the emotions that anthropologists experience during the process of fieldwork and beyond (Davies and Spencer 2010). We welcome papers that depart from ethnographic research in the UK to interrogate the anthropologist’s own emotional reactions and social, political and moral standpoints in the field and in the dissemination of work. Although we invite contributors to reflect on the implications of one’s positioning, we look forward to (self)reflections that act as a “handmaiden of ethnography” (Behar 1997) and personal accounts that engage with theoretical debates.
Accepted papers:
Paper short abstract:
In this paper I consider if a distinction between analysis and politics can be artificially created within a particular stage of the research process, and what are the benefits and dangers of doing so. I argue that analytical greenhousing is particularly important for the anthropology of Britain.
Paper long abstract:
While Roger Brubaker and Frederick Cooper (2000), as well as Ghassan Hage (2010), maintain the difference between analytical and political goals in social sciences, Sara Ahmed (2017), among others, argues that there is no theory which is not political. In this paper I consider if a distinction between academic analysis and politics can be artificially created within a particular stage of the research process, and what are the benefits and dangers of doing so. A greenhouse is a climate-controlled structure designed to protect tender plants. Could emotionally-charged ethnographic material on “migration”, “Brexit” or “racism” benefit from analytical greenhousing before it is exposed to its political implications? What would greenhousing entail or look like? I will elaborate on this idea by discussing my experience in developing ethnographic research in Thanet, Southeast England, while also working for a UK university. I argue that analytical greenhousing is particularly important for the anthropology of Britain.
Paper short abstract:
This paper looks at the political and moral discourses that surround Twelve Step Fellowships in the UK, and how such discourses influence and interact with my positionality as an ethnographer working with secular and non-theist members of twelve step groups in London.
Paper long abstract:
In the UK, Twelve Step Fellowships (TSF’s) have a place both in popular imagination, and in many people’s lives. This means that when I describe my research on non-theism in TSF’s to people I meet, there is often some level of familiarity. The impressions they have vary, but whatever their understanding of, or proximity to, 12-step groups, the subject usually prompts talk of agency, wellness, and secularity. It produces discourse which is thick with political and moral commitments. Underlying almost all of these conversations is a question of whether or not TSF’s are good -whether or not they ‘work’, whether or not they are to be taken seriously. This question hovers in the conversation, it imbues and frames my response, it calls me forth to communicate my position.
In this talk, I explore how I might negotiate such questions in relation to my anthropological commitment to taking what my informants say, do, and experience, seriously. The proximity of my fieldsite, as well as of secular milieu within which I live most of my life, plays into how I think about my research and the ways in which I carry out my analysis. I will discuss how I have found myself navigating the affective and discursive manifestations of particular moral, political, and existential commitments within which I am immersed, the different points of tensions that arise as I do so, and the ways that I attempt to navigate these tensions in my work.
Paper short abstract:
Based on twelve months of ethnographic fieldwork in Kirkby, Liverpool, this paper focuses on a protest and riot that happened in 2023 surrounding the placement of asylum seekers in a hotel in the area. I discuss some of the tensions and dilemmas involved when doing research in this environment.
Paper long abstract:
In 2022/2023, I conducted twelve months of ethnographic fieldwork in my hometown, Kirkby, a post-industrial town on the outskirts of Liverpool with some of the highest levels of socioeconomic deprivation in the country. Initially, empathising with the political views of my participants was not difficult, as their primary adversary was the Conservative Government. However, when approximately one hundred asylum seekers were placed in a local hotel during my fieldwork things became more complex. I observed gradually increasing tensions surrounding their presence, culminating in a violent protest and riot outside the hotel. I attended the protest as part of my research and was recognised by counter-protesters, who accused me (rightly so) of standing 'on the wrong side.' This created conflicts both socially and internally which remain an ongoing effect of my fieldwork. My data demonstrates that mainstream media accounts of this riot as right-wing and racist are overly simplistic. However, my concern is that being open about this may lead to me being aligned with ‘unlikeable others’ for the rest of my career (Pasieka, 2019:3). Likewise, giving voice to the rioters in this situation does not sit comfortably with my own political beliefs. This paper will explore some of these tensions and the ethical dilemmas involved when conducting research in an increasingly polarised Britain, more specifically, when conducting research with interlocutors whose views diverge from our own moral standpoint.
Pasieka, A. (2019), Anthropology of the far right: What if we like the ‘unlikeable’ others?. Anthropology Today, 35: 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12480
Paper short abstract:
Drawing on fieldwork conducted with transgender activists, researchers and clinicians caught up in the front lines of the so-called ‘TERF wars’, I reflect on the often exhausting, tedious and perplexing process of researching the anti-transgender backlash in the UK as a transgender researcher.
Paper long abstract:
Over the past years, anti-transgender sentiment has significantly intensified in Britain, reflected in an increasingly hostile policy environment and a steady manufacturing of ‘transgender moral panics’ (Hines 2020) by various actors with political, cultural and economic power. These debates have been affectively structured and shaped by organizations and individuals often described as ‘TERFs’, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, who have unsettled liberal notions of facts and truth through alternative affective attachments to politics. In this presentation, I reflect on the often exhausting, tedious and perplexing process of researching the anti-transgender backlash in the UK as a transgender researcher. Drawing on fieldwork conducted with transgender activists, researchers and clinicians caught up in the front lines of the so-called ‘TERF wars’ (Pearce, Vincent and Erikainen 2020), I interrogate how affect circulates in these research encounters in ways that exceed the logic of analytic categorization, and its subsequent capacity to redirect the research process. I argue the very sense of ‘stuckness’ that often characterizes researchers’ attempts (including my own) to reconcile the tensions between political, intellectual and personal commitments and ethics on the field, can also open up a potentiality for moving differently.
Paper short abstract:
Investigating how British civil servants in the European Commission navigated their political identities and emotions during the 2016 UK Referendum, this article explores new insights which the study of expatriates living permanently abroad can produce for the anthropology of Britain.
Paper long abstract:
The 2016 Brexit referendum marked a political juncture for the crisis of legitimacy in liberal democracies, one characterised by increasing distrust and disenchantment among citizens with democratic institutions (Krastev and Holmes 2017). Among the rippling effects still being absorbed and made sense of is a political dichotomy between globalist and nationalist identities that has begun to eclipse traditional socioeconomic cleavages between ‘right’ and ‘left’. As ethnography becomes ubiquitous in other modes of research beyond disciplinary borders, leading scholars are giving voice to a felt ambient anxiety that social anthropology is losing its public voice (Ingold 2014). This article reflects on fieldwork experiences among the last British civil servants working in the European Commission before and after the plebiscite. A theory of ‘feeling states’, referring both to the emotional conditions of powerful regimes as well as the affective capacities they mobilize and evoke, is developed to understand how they navigated their political identities and emotions. Confronting the question of whether anthropology should seek to change the world or to merely understand it, I consider how the answer to this dilemma changes contextually in anthropological encounters among so-called ‘elite’ informants. The ‘changing versus understanding’ dichotomy, while useful as a framework for epistemological debates in the philosophy of science, presents a false dilemma in a discipline where new knowledge is not discovered out in the world but is relationally constructed. I conclude by outlining particular ways that the study of expatriates living permanently abroad can produce new insights for the anthropology of Britain.
Paper short abstract:
Drawing on fieldwork with Romanians in London during 2020-2021, this paper reflects on how anthropologists can analyse their ‘positioned selves’ to better understand the political structures impacting their own lives and those of their participants in contemporary Britain.
Paper long abstract:
Based on fieldwork at the intersections of COVID-19 and Brexit, this paper argues that reflecting on our ‘positioned selves’ can help ethnographers make better sense of life in contemporary Britain. Between 2020-2021, I lived with and observed the everyday lives of a Romanian family in London. Fieldwork with my co-nationals expanded beyond debates of ‘anthropology at home’ as I engaged in multiple and at times conflicting (re)positionings, what I call ‘positioned selves’. By participating in housework, my role as a young Romanian woman allowed me to document the multi-household network required to sustain livelihoods during ‘a kinwork and care deficit’ created by state pandemic responses (Bear et al., 2020). Witnessing the aftermath of Brexit led me to further identify and align with participants, engaging in bureaucratic efforts to help them secure their status in the UK. However, this identification faltered as I struggled to make sense of my participants’ positions against the COVID-19 vaccine and pandemic. As I grappled with anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, I interrogated my role as an ethnographer to make these conspiratorial narratives meaningful and ethically represent them and their political significance. Rather than distinct personas, these ‘positioned selves’ were intertwined and required careful detangling during fieldwork and beyond. Through this process of detangling, I uncovered the many roles played by my participants in the face of multiple ‘crises’ in contemporary Britain – from caring mothers to precarious migrants and discerning conspiracists.
Paper short abstract:
This paper draws on ethnographies of political campaigns during the 2024 UK General Election to explore how women parliamentary candidates experience election campaigns. We reflect on some of the methodological challenges faced when undertaking ethnography on this political terrain.
Paper long abstract:
While ethnographies of everyday politics have long been deployed within anthropology and related fields, political elites have only recently become subjects of ethnographic attention, while even less research has explored ethnographically political campaigns and the experiences of candidates. This paper draws on several ethnographies of election campaigns conducted by the authors across the North West, South East, and South West of England during the 2024 UK General Election. The aim of the ‘campaign ethnographies’ was to explore how women parliamentary candidates of different political parties experienced election campaigns, with a focus upon how they navigate everyday moments of harm, intimidation, sexism, abuse, and violence on the campaign trail and in their doorstep interactions with voters. We observed candidates at public meetings, community visits, campaign events, election hustings, and party conferences, and spoke with party members and supporters during our everyday interactions on the campaign trail and through in-depth ethnographic interviews.
The election was marked by heightened emotions and a concerning rise in intimidation and abuse faced by candidates and their campaign teams. This paper reflects on some of the challenges faced when undertaking a campaign ethnography on this political terrain, such as navigating positionalities vis à vis candidates, campaign teams, and voters, co-constructing a relational ethics with our interlocuters, and bearing and sharing the emotional labour of the campaign. We also draw on some of the challenges that are presented by the idiosyncrasies of the UK electoral system and what these mean for practicing this type of ‘campaign ethnography’.