Short Abstract

Anthropology has always depended on building relationships across political, territorial and institutional boundaries. Yet how do we do anthropology when the political worlds are drifting apart? The Russian North offers a timely context to explore these tensions, but it is by no means the only one.

Long Abstract

What does it mean to remain accountable to research partners when states’ pressure, militarisation, and hardening borders reshape the very conditions of ethnographic work? What happens to anthropological relationships when institutions become suspicious of particular research partners, or researchers themselves become politically exposed? What compromises, refusals, alliances and forms of solidarity become necessary? When does solidarity become a responsibility? When can it reproduce paternalistic relationships, or create risks for those with whom we work?

These questions reflect an increasingly challenging situation across the Circumpolar North. Russia’s war against Ukraine has disrupted established forms of transnational Arctic collaboration; yet these challenges are by no means confined to Russia. Researchers in Turtle Island, Kalaallit Nunaat, Sápmi and other parts of the Circumpolar North encounter new forms of state pressure, dispossession, militarisation, extractive development and political polarisation. The politics of the United States, along with an increasingly security-oriented discourse on the Arctic, raise questions about how apparently democratic projects can reproduce coercive or colonial relations.

These tensions cannot easily be resolved through conventional ideas of research ethics or academic neutrality. We invite colleagues to present ongoing research in the Circumpolar North and beyond to reflect on these challenges through concrete ethnographic experiences. Contributions need not explicitly concern Russia or the Arctic. We welcome insights from other regions that allow us to think comparatively about how anthropology can maintain relationships, remain accountable and continue to be relevant while recognising the unequal risks and responsibilities involved in conducting research in politically polarised and precarious settings.