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:
-
Jonatan Kurzwelly
(Peace Research Institute Frankfurt)
Marta Kluszczynska (Adam Mickiewicz University)
Send message to Convenors
- Formats:
- Panels
Short Abstract:
This panel will explore and theorise essentialism, its diverse logics, uses, and meanings, through a comparative ethnographic juxtapositon. We are interested in both different nationalist and xenophobic discourses, practices and movements and the 'strategic essentialism' of identity politics.
Long Abstract:
Study of different types of grouping and othering has gained a new sense of urgency and relevance for anthropology. Globally, on the one hand, we are faced with a rise of nationalistic and xenophobic political movements and social practices which systematically prey on essentialist and reductionist representations of the social world. On the other hand, movements of resistance often seek unity and legitimacy through 'strategic essentialism' and 'identity politics'. This panel will comparatively debate the reasons for, uses, meanings and logics of different current essentialisms, such as new nationalisms, new racisms, new emergent forms of xenophobia and religious neofundamentalisms; but also essentialism of indigenous and ethnic resistance groups, political autonomy movements, ethnic or racial 'consciousness' projects, and other forms of 'strategic essentialism'. Through such comparative juxtapositon, our aim is to explore and theorise essentialism and the qualitative and axiomatic differences of its diverse uses. We ask what does it mean to 'essentialise' a social identity; whether and how one might distinguish between essentialism perpetuated by victims of historical abuse and inequality, and that of those in positions of power and privilege; how to understand the allure of essentialist thinking; what are the alternatives to essentialist 'groupism,' national rootedness and sedentarism; and other different analytical and philosophical takes on the phenomena. We invite papers from all ethnographic regions and theoretical perspectives which contribute to the debate.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Paper short abstract:
Based on fieldwork in Chemnitz, it will be reflected upon methodological approaches, practical limitations, as well as conditions and possibilities of alteritarian movements in identitarian times.
Paper long abstract:
In 2018, the violent excesses against People of Colour and journalists in the Saxonian City of Chemnitz benchmarked incrementally blurry boundaries between right-wing-populism and -radicalism in Germany: 'Anxious citizens' had no reservations walking side by side with a whole range of organized neo-Nazis anymore, corroborating the increasing normalization of political violence in Europe.
Empirically exemplified by my ongoing field-research in Chemnitz, I will reflect upon my analytical approach: Aggressive Identitarianism can always be practiced one-sidedly, by boundary-drawing and fighting against difference and diversity. Defensively emancipative and thus practically necessary identity-politics can always be practiced one-sidedly as well, by boundary-drawing and fighting against privilege - but then structurally competing with other identifications for socio-cultural recognition and public visibility. Alterity-politics by contrast is practically based in mutual responsibility, ethical commitment and dialogue with conflicting identifications, where solidarity beyond identity arises: It requires a voluntary questioning of socio-cultural identifications and privileges. It is the process of debordering, creating new common ground, creating new, open and 'hybrid' alterities beyond the conventional logics of identity-related boundary-maintenance. Alterity-politics is the other mode of the political in diametric opposition to the practically one-sided logics of identity-politics in general, with the fundamental weakness in practice, that it cannot be practiced least enforced one-sidedly, but only accomplished in mutual agreement.
Elaborating logics of practice in conflict from my previous studies with regard to relational conflict-dynamics between identitarianism, identity-politics and alterity-politics, methodological approaches, practical limitations, as well as conditions and possibilities of alteritarian movements in identitarian times will be outlined.
Paper short abstract:
Inspired by the burgeoning literature on cosmopolitanisms, auto-ethnographic teaching work, and Conley's 'chaosmopolis', this paper interrogates the tensions between strategic essentialisms' desires for 'recognition' and identity as conflicted temporary assemblage, in envisioning multiculturalism.
Paper long abstract:
I bring the findings of ethnographic work in a high school into conversation with contemporary scholarship on cosmopolitanism, cosmo-politics, eco-politics and my current auto-ethnographic work teaching a university course on cosmopolitanisms and questions of belonging, both in the city of Toronto. I explored the tensions that are invoked by the embodied essentialism(s) of a politics of recognition, on the one hand, and the 'tug-of-war' of the everyday workings of identity as partial becomings. I juxtapose the imaginary lens of cultural pluralism, and 'cultures' a pre-existent and discrete entities, with Conley's (2002) 'chaosmopolis' that views the city as continually being created and re-created. I explore what it might mean to re-energize Canadian multiculturalism through these tensions and against a backdrop of populist anti-multicultural rhetoric and sentiment. I argue for the retention of the tension, to engage with the clash of theory and to resist the temptation to domesticate the messiness in the interest of theoretical coherence.
Paper short abstract:
In this paper I will outline the trajectory of essentialist thinking in our discipline in order to expose it's dangers and oppose it's contemporary manifestations. I will also discuss the different forms and functions of essentialism and open the panel to further discussion.
Paper long abstract:
This paper will begin with an overview of essentialist thinking in our discipline. Eugen Fischer's biological anthropology in German South-West Africa and the development of his 'race science' influenced the genocidal ideology of Nazi Germany. Bronisław Malinowski's cultural relativism led him to argue in favour of racially segregated education in South Africa, indirectly influencing it's later implementation. These are only two famous examples of essentialist understanding of groups of people, from a biological and culturalist perspectives, which are representative of the academic colonial service our discipline provided. Essentialist thinking, despite it's fallacious logic, is far from extinct in modern social sciences, with scholars attributing different 'ontologies' or other forms of radical difference to groups of people, or attempting to defend 'strategic essentialism' in service of the oppressed. Through this brief historical overview I will expose the inherent dangers of essentialist thinking and oppose it's contemporary manifestations. In the second part of my presentation, with the aim of facilitating further discussion, I will briefly discuss different forms and functions of essentialism, drawing from both my own research and other examples presented in this panel.