Paper short abstract:

This study engages with how indigenous filmmakers in Aizawl, in northeast India use the digital media. I examine the co-option and the co-use of digital high-technology and small scale-devices to show the complex structure of how indigenous film is made and shown to the public.

Paper long abstract:

This study engages with how indigenous filmmakers in Aizawl, the capital of the state of Mizoram in India’s northeast, use digital media. The study decenters from the focus of the technological and infrastructure, as well as the market systems and the regulatory frameworks, of which digital media, is often investigated. Rather, it is embedded in the everyday media engagements of indigenous filmmakers. The starting point here is that there is no uniform digital media development, and I oppose the assumption of “one-size-fits-all” digital technology engagement and proliferation (Gillespie, 2019).

I will examine the co-option and the co-use of digital high-technology and small scale-devices to show the complex structure of how indigenous film is made and shown to the public in Aizawl. I look at the production sites and explore how the filmmakers use high-end digital technology to create videos/ films, and why they hesitate to release it digitally or upload it on the internet. Instead, the filmmakers work with local public leaders to organize local tours to connect with the community. Thus, high tech films are shown in makeshift venues, often using mundane tools like white cloths and small devices like beamers to screen local movies. The paper looks at how non-state actors use the digital media on their own terms and for their own purposes and their network.

I will also outline some of the challenges of doing ethnography as an indigenous person, while still engaging with western or hegemonic decolonial thoughts.

Paper short abstract:

The presentation will describe some collaborative experiences we realised with the Mebengokré Amerindians from the Amazon as diversions. The aim is to discuss if and how these effectively and affectively engaged the actors involved and impacted the structured ways of doing anthropology.

Paper long abstract:

As a result of a growing emphasis on ethical dimensions of the discipline and the increasing number of scholars that are part of people previously excluded from the universities, anthropologists have been dedicating growing attention to the development of more collaborative ways of “doing” anthropology in academia and its dissemination. Within this framework, my presentation describes and discusses collaborative efforts that we jointly realised with the Mebengokré Amerindian people living in the Amazon in the last years. These include the collective writing of academic papers, the joint curatorship of photographic and ethnographic exhibitions, and the collaborative elaboration of research-action projects. Based on these examples, I will reflect on co-production as “diversion” and if and how it is effectively and affectively challenging the canonised format of anthropology as an academic discipline. Are these efforts a “diversion” as a different path to achieve the same goal? Are these a “diversion” as a movement toward an unexpected result? Or are these a “diversion” as a funnier and more engaging way of doing anthropology? I argue that the most efficacious way to challenge the hierarchies of epistemological practices and academic formats and structures is to join all three kinds of diversion.

Paper short abstract:

How can non-Indigenous scholars apply decolonial approaches emerged from Indigenous methodological trends? The notion of habitus assimilation is presented as a methodological insight challenging the hierarchical dynamics historically associated with anthropological research in Indigenous contexts.

Paper long abstract:

Following the call for decolonisation of research methodologies concerning Indigenous Peoples (Smith, 2008), Pacific research methodologies have emerged as a growing trend in social sciences challenging the unbalanced hierarchies faced by Pacific communities in research contexts (Leenen-Young & Uperesa, 2023; Naepi, 2019). This decolonial approach prioritises the inclusion of local epistemologies, ontologies, and sociocultural values in the research project. In other words, it encourages Pacific scholars to conduct research from a Pacific perspective. This scenario gives rise to a question which constitutes the central topic of this presentation: how can non-Indigenous scholars apply decolonial approaches emerged from Indigenous methodological trends?

This paper presents the concept of 'habitus assimilation' (Jornet, 2021) as a methodological approach to challenge the hierarchical dynamics that have historically defined anthropological research in Indigenous contexts. Assimilating the habitus means to learn and integrate the local habitus in order to accustom oneself to a specific group, and interact with individuals in accordance with the structuring codes of their own social life. Drawing from his personal experience working with the Polynesian community of Rapa Nui, the author explores how this approach allows for the application of Pacific research methodologies in ethnographic fieldwork, as a non-Indigenous researcher.

This contribution aims to put forward a practical example of how decoloniality might be implemented through deferential research practices. In addition, this presentation invites reflection on the obstacles encountered by researchers in the endeavor of incorporating decolonial practices into contemporary research processes.

Paper short abstract:

My paper asks what it takes to facilitate research at eye level, both methodologically and ethically, and if and when the ‘decolonial’ is an apt conceptual approach in this regard - and for whom. The paper offers reflections on legacies and legitimations in ethnographic research practice and output.

Paper long abstract:

Drawing on ethnographic work with socioecological mobilisations in India, this paper explores the possibilities of research at eye level and genuine collaboration, both in research encounters and in output. The multi-layered consideration of the ‘decolonial’ seems crucial in this context, as its use not only challenges academic methodology and ethics, but also becomes increasingly relevant as a tool of (self-)positioning and resistance for people in various contexts. However, charged as it is in academia, it also opens doors to misconceptions and decontextualised appropriations. The issues addressed in this paper therefore include: In what contexts is the decolonial an apt conceptual, practical and/or ethical approach - why, and for whom? How does it relate to other concepts that challenge historical, spatial, and epistemic inequalities? What does the uncompromising rejection of any paternalism and the radical questioning of one's own legacy and legitimacy mean for ethnographic research, including its ‘post-production’ in texts or other outputs? What does it take to do justice to calls for decoloniality - be it one’s own or those of others - if decoloniality is to be more than a paper testimony of one’s credits and credentials? What is the heuristic and ethical value of its use, and for whom? How can different epistemologies of the decolonial be negotiated, and whose voices (shall) lead the way? Based on my own research practice, I hope to offer, if not answers, then at least food for discussion.

Paper short abstract:

The paper discusses the changes that have been happening during the last forty years in the region which is popularly known as the Balkans and formally as South-eastern Europe, during the so-called anthropologization of the peripheral version of the discipline, ethnology (Volkskunde).

Paper long abstract:

The paper discusses the disciplinary, but also educational and moral, changes that have been happening during the last forty years in the region which is popularly known as the Balkans and formally as South-eastern Europe, during the process of the so-called anthropologization of the peripheral version of the discipline, ethnology (Volkskunde). Initially, the conventional nationalist-leaning ethnology required a profound revamp, distancing itself from rural cultures, populations, and the tendency to construct a cultural past steeped in a politico-historical agenda. The infusion of new theories and emergence of fresh authors sought to modernize the discipline. Despite earnest efforts, those of us with unconventional English accents found ourselves perceived as outsiders, our contributions deemed valuable yet falling short for admission into the mainstream discourse. Recent developments offer a glimmer of hope for change. I will analyze three unrelated events from my nearly two-decade career as an anthropologist from Croatia. These events include a renowned scholar from Western Europe asserting that his anthropologist friend could have halted the 1990s war through personal experience, a conference on health in Romania featuring a lesser-known Western scholar highlighting the 'horrors' of Balkan healthcare systems, and a highly distinguished Western European scholar casually mentioning the Balkanization of anthropology. These instances reveal a persistently colonial attitude towards Balkan anthropology. In contemplating these events, one senses a potential shift towards inclusivity and recognition in the broader academic landscape.

Paper short abstract:

This paper will delve into the mechanisms of how the ethics committees of European universities—in an attempt to correct colonial relics inherent in anthropology—find themselves far removed from the lived experiences of other cultures, and deprive research subjects of their agency.

Paper long abstract:

I was convinced that the best way to understand the experiences of older widows who use social media would be to interrogate the lives of my mother and several aunts, whose lives had drastically evolved upon widowhood and their use of social media. I decided to embark upon intimate ethnography (Waterston & Rylko-Bauer, 2006) as my research methodology, with an “intimate other” as the subject of research.

Family outsiders—people who do not have a shared history or future commitment—may have a difficult time trying to access the lived, personal, embodied experiences of this history and commitment. However, an insider—a member of the family—can describe and analyse this in novel and nuanced ways (Adams & Manning, 2015), and this was what I was attempting in understanding the lives of older women in 21st century India. Key to my research questions was the idea of agency that the women exercised.

However, my application to the ethics committee within my European university was promptly rejected. Vulnerability of the widows was a key concern, even though I had explicitly mentioned that the women had been widowed since several years. So when my mother asked me about the progress of my research and I told her that my university viewed her as too vulnerable for my research, she blurted those words in anger and disdain.

This paper—drawing in from the application to the ethics committee and their responses—will delve into the mechanisms of how the ethics committees of universities find themselves far removed from the lived experiences of other cultures.

Paper short abstract:

Notwithstanding its efficacy as rallying cry, the 'decolonizing' turn may run into unresolvable impasses, when applied to the heritage and museums sector. I point to such impasses using an analytical lens borrowed from the postcolonial critique of the decolonial theoretical turn.

Paper long abstract:

The term ‘decolonial’ and in particular its active derivate – decolonizing – has been remarkably operative. It has drawn global attention to matters of colonial injustice that seem to perpetuate themselves and mobilized people and institutions to push for and take reparative actions. As rallying cry, it travelled outside the walls of academia and had palpable effects in the museums and heritage sector, for instance.

With this as backdrop, in this paper I push for a particular type of “reality check”. My central argument is that, upon closer look, the decolonial theoretical turn runs into unresolvable impasses, when applied to the museums/heritage sector.

Going against the grain of the generalised appropriation of the concept predicated on its efficacy, my aim is to pause to reflect carefully about its deeper significance and implications for ongoing change in ethnographic/world culture museums.

I will work through my argument in three moments: (1) Beginning with an overview of the decolonizing movement in museums, (2) I continue by highlighting a few lines of the debate between decolonial and postcolonial theory. This will be my framework to shed light on what I see as limitations or deadlocks with which ethnographic/world culture museums are confronted as they face processes of decolonization. (3) Thirdly, I point to alternative ways to tackle these challenges through the prism of postcolonial ideas.

Paper short abstract:

The paper reflects on collaborative exhibition practices as well as present-day encounters around the wood-carved ancestor panel Hinematioro’s pou in Tübingen and Uawa, Aotearoa New Zealand.

Paper long abstract:

I will explore the polyphony of present-day decolonial discourses on James Cook in Aotearoa New Zealand which in one version sees him as the first white oppressor. Thereby, I draw on talks with Maori people and explore concepts of Maori indigeneities as transnational and cosmopolitan. In which way does Clifford’s understanding of contact zones then reflect a decolonial approach to the question of to which place objects belong? And what could the latter tell us on the question of decolonizing at large?