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.


Political anthropology of citizenship and the urge for ‘‘alternatives’’ [Network of Anthropology and Social Movements] 
Martin Roy (Laboratoire d'anthropologie politique (LAP-EHESS-CNRS), Joint PhD EHESS (Paris) - University of Ottawa)
Elena Apostoli Cappello (ULB Universié Libre de Bruxelles)
Piotr Goldstein (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research (DeZIM), Berlin)
Send message to Convenors
Catherine Neveu (IIAC (CNRS-EHESS))
Thursday 25 July, -, -
Time zone: Europe/Madrid
Add to Calendar:

Short Abstract:

This panel, proposed by AESA network ''Anthropology and Social Movements'', is part of an ongoing discussion about how a political anthropology perspective on citizenship can provide new ways of practicing anthropology without losing the politic(s) of the fieldwork when looking for ''alternatives''.

Long Abstract:

From an anthropological perspective, the use of ‘‘citizenship’’ as an analytical tool serves a critical purpose: looking for alternative practices of citizenship in order to notice and better understand ongoing global ‘‘crisis’’ from a local and political perspective and unravel the normative knots of our own way of understanding citizenship processes. Such a task is often put to work to address the ‘‘politics of future(s)’’ through the account of the ‘‘political possibilities’’ woven into alternative practices of citizenship. Yet, what looking for such ‘‘alternatives’’ does to anthropology as a craft?

Lately, many anthropologists of social movements have been using Engin Isin’s notion of “acts of citizenship” in order to grasp such alternatives. Those uses rest on varying implicit set of normative rules – mainly conflicting with Isin’s theory (Roy and Neveu 2023) – deriving from normative shifts rarely discussed by anthropologists. Only by addressing these shifts can we critically engage with the politic(s) of anthropology, understood as a craft in the making.

A political anthropology perspective would suggest these shifts should be justified by the politic(s) of the fieldwork. Not doing so, we risk reducing our field to our own desire of extracting ‘‘alternative(s)’’ and losing the very meanings in which the ‘‘crisis’’ being dealt with in a ''citizenshiply'' manner on the field. We would suggest that the category of ‘‘ordinariness’’ (Neveu 2015) might play as a significative analytical tool to prevent such a reduction.

We expect proposals to question the normativities anthropologists have about citizenship when looking for ''alternatives''.

Accepted papers:

Session 1 Thursday 25 July, 2024, -
Session 2 Thursday 25 July, 2024, -