Paper short abstract:

This paper examines the analytical positioning of anthropologists responding to the specific historical moment of post-2015 refugee solidarity. It asks what affirmative, critical, and other anthropological stances bring to both academia and on-the-ground organizing.

Paper long abstract:

How do we, as anthropologists, position ourselves analytically when writing about progressive or radical social movements? This paper explores this question through recourse to anthropological literature concerning refugee solidarity in the wake of 2015’s so-called “crisis.”

The first section of the paper provides a general schematization of anthropologists’ analytical stances. It will provide a brief historical overview of positivism and objectivity within the discipline, and their critique (Stocking 1982; Clifford and Marcus 1986; Rosaldo 1993). Subsequently, it will discuss contemporary currents in the study of progressive and radical movements, such as affirmative (Razsa 2015) and abolitionist anthropology (Shange 2019).

The second section of the paper is a case study of anthropological response in a specific historical moment of crisis. In summer 2015, a social movement of solidarity emerged as thousands of people crossed Europe. Almost immediately, anthropologists began documenting the scene (Papataxiarchis 2016). Many anthropologists initially adopted a largely sympathetic, sometimes allied position towards manifestations of refugee solidarity (Stierl 2016; Kotronaki, Lafazani, & Maniatis 2018; Vandevoordt 2019), while others have critically unearthed social exclusion and latent racism in solidarity practices (Danewid 2017; Zaman 2019). Moreover, scholars have warned of the risks of an anthropology that acts as moral judge of solidarity (Rozakou 2017) or behaves in complicity with the “refugee regime” in Greece (Cabot 2018). This second half of the paper considers what these different analytical positionings bring to the field—which is to say, both the field of anthropology and the field of on-the-ground response and solidarity organizing.

Paper short abstract:

This paper provides an example of how anthropological research in the field contributes to understand contexts of tension and conflict, and to changes in the historical path, based in a scientific mission among the Makonde (Mozambique) commissioned by the Portuguese government in the 1950s.

Paper long abstract:

There were still around 20 years left until the end of Portuguese colonialism, but it was from within the colonial field that came some of the main contributions to triggering the end of colonialism. One of the paradigmatic examples of these contributions comes from the results produced by the anthropological mission to Mozambique, commissioned by the Portuguese government, which took place between 1956 and 1960, and whose team members were Jorge Dias, Margot Dias and Manuel Viegas Guerreiro. These results included the writing of monographs and also secret reports, these latter addressed only to the government. The initial stance of this team seems to denounce their belief in the idea that Portuguese colonialism was different, because it was benevolent and contributed to a humanitarian mission. This is especially true in the results that have been published. However, in the secret reports produced by this team, several descriptions denounce the racism and violence in Portuguese colonial field, which led the authors to conclude that colonial domination could not continue for much longer (Pereira 2021). The contacts made with Mozambique's neighboring countries, such as Tanzania and Zimbabwe (where winds of change were already circulating and where the headquarters of some of the independence movements, whose actions aimed to reach the Portuguese colonies were based) also contributed to this perception. Both the circulation of people and of ideas, which are distinct from ideologies (Wolf 1999), although a basic condition for intellectual activity, cannot be separated from this historical and geographical context (Said 1983).

Paper short abstract:

The aim of this paper is to explore the ethics of research on human communality in anthropology of crises. Ethics in anthropology will be identified with the question of what is legal and illegal in current crises research. These issues could shed a new light on anthropological theory.

Paper long abstract:

Recent anthropological studies suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has traumatised many populations in Europe, and especially at the border (Katarzyna Stakłosa, Birte Wassenberg 2021). Little is known about how the pandemic affected the Lithuanian and Lithuanian border population. We also know little about how people felt in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic and the outbreak of war. Do these 21st century crises remind people of the wars and plagues of the past? The questions raised open up the issue of human communality, which anthropology is an excellent tool for studying. The aim of this paper is to explore the ethics of research on human communality in anthropology of crises. Discussing the new theoretical approach of the American anthropologist Jarrett Zigon (Zigon 2024), it will be argued that the most important ethical question in anthropology of crises is: what about between us? Ethics in anthropology will be identified with the question of what is legal and illegal in current crises research. The paper will analyse ethics in anthropology and ethnography of crises from three perspectives. First, how fieldwork reveals issues of crises, showing the various relationships between individuals, institutions, governments, masses, etc. Second, what legal and even illegal global voices from below provide on pandemic and war. Finally, which attitudes reveal the ethical relationship between the researcher and the presenter in cases of fieldwork in Lithuania. Research on these issues could shed a new light on antropological theory, methods and the crises management.

Paper short abstract:

Through the development of 'crisolation' analytical concept, this paper explores the consequences of natural disasters in Slovenia and Croatia. Methodology adopts a participatory and action-oriented approach, intending to gain an in-depth understanding of everyday life while assisting communities.

Paper long abstract:

In the last three years, the Banija region in Croatia and the Meža Valley in Slovenia have faced the devastating consequences of natural disasters. In 2020, an earthquake hit Banija, and in 2023, severe floods and landslides, caused by heavy rain and storms, struck the Meža Valley. Both regions witnessed physical and material destruction. The residents claim a sense of extreme insecurity and helplessness that have significantly affected their lives. People in Banija have to face a new tragedy while still coping with the war aftermath of the 1990s. Around 25,000 residents in the Meža Valley experience unexpected isolation and extreme devastation.

Considering comparative ethnographic research, this paper focuses on two concepts: the concept of crisis, defined as a pressing situation often extending beyond individuals and their communities, and isolation, defined as detachment from others, either in space, time, or in any other way. As the paper demonstrates, both phenomena have positive, productive, creative, generative, and desirable meanings and outcomes, as well as destructive, involuntary, and harmful effects for individuals, communities, and societies.

By creating the framework of "crisolation", the paper focuses on the understudied duality of crises and isolation as phenomena that contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges posed by interrelated and permanent crises. It relied on participatory and action-oriented research that aims to develop an “understanding of social and cultural life while helping communities address the challenges they face” (Rubinstein 2018). In this analysis, the terms of loneliness, abandonment, and marginalization resonate with solidarity and humanity.

Paper short abstract:

I investigate the moral economy of speculation at times of crisis to understand the uncertainty of ongoing economic fluctuations and hyperinflation, political instability which creates a climate of polarization, not only in the political and cultural spheres but also in terms of consumption patterns

Paper long abstract:

This paper investigates the moral economy of speculation at times of crisis in the Turkish Context. My research context is driven by the contingency of crises and uncertainty in Turkey, such as the ongoing economic fluctuations and hyperinflation or political instability which creates a climate of polarization, not only in the political and cultural spheres but also in terms of consumption patterns. In this context, the national fiat currency has lost its credibility, and people are preoccupied with anticipating and coping with economic uncertainties. The theoretical framework of this paper is centered on understanding the moral economy of speculation and money in times of crisis. I identify three fundamental components of this moral economy: a collective understanding of legalized gambling, wealth, money, and luck; the establishment of normative practices within the legalized gambling sector; and the social mechanisms that contribute to the classification and stratification of society, particularly with regard to class, gender, and moral perspectives on gambling delineate an examination of the moral economy of speculation in Turkey. work on moral economy and everyday ethics provides valuable insights into the intersection of economic practices, crisis, and moral frameworks. A moral economy framework focuses on how ‘everyday ethics’ (Webb Keane 2019) intersects with the speculative economic decisions that people engage with. I argue that this allows us to pay special attention to the hierarchies between different forms of speculative activities to examine how the deployment of certain moral boundaries represents class, gender, cultural, religious, and financial disparities.

Paper short abstract:

Forensic and expert social anthropology (FESA) plays a crucial role in the aftermath of conflict and disaster. This paper summarises the work of FESA practitioners in Australia following the British invasion, and offers insights for related peacebuilding and disaster recovery elsewhere in the world.

Paper long abstract:

Conflict and disaster are harmful to human beings, harmful to our minds and bodies, to our communities and wider populations, and ultimately to our cultures. As part of our efforts to mitigate against these harms, input from relevant experts is ideally sought by judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government in cooperation with civil society organizations. Forensic and expert social anthropology (FESA) is a specialised branch of the discipline of anthropology adapted to deliver investigative and advisory services to courts, governments, NGOs, and other legally empowered organizations, where human culture has been acknowledged as an issue of concern. FESA practice is especially tailored to work with legally and administratively involved individuals and communities who are culturally marginalized within national populations, and therefore particularly vulnerable to conflict and disaster.

Drawing on the unfolding peacebuilding and disaster recovery efforts underway in Australia following the British invasion and occupation that persisted through to the 1970s, this paper will outline the role of FESA practitioners in restorative justice initiatives. This includes the provision for forensic investigations into, and expert opinion and advice on, the return of seized lands, resettlement of internally displaced persons, reunion of separated families, and the preservation and revitalization of cultural heritage. As a European colonial power, Britain’s legal-administrative ‘border’ with Australia remained intact until 1986, when the last vestiges of British authority were quietly severed. This paper will describe the evolution of FESA practice since this time, together with possible insights for restorative intercultural justice in other ex-colonial jurisdictions.

Paper short abstract:

This paper reflects on the possibilities and the political, ethical, and moral issues arising in the context of ethnography during war and insurgent situations. Emerging from fieldwork in Iraqi Kurdistan, it also contemplates the moral issues on the handling of data and accounts of extreme violence.

Paper long abstract:

Based on reflections during fieldwork in Iraqi Kurdistan interrupted by a bombing campaign, this work aims to contemplate the possibilities and challenges of anthropology in war contexts, especially in situations where war is not an exceptional circumstance but a perpetual condition shaping local subjectivities and ontologies (Richards 2005; Lubkemann 2008;). Other reflections originating from this context include how to approach stories of extreme violence (Das 2011), and what it means to be the ethnographer chosen by the interlocutor to share a particular narrative.

It also reflects on the ethical-political dilemmas in handling ethnographic data that may be of interest to powerful actors – both state and non-state – in the context of ethnic conflict, addressing issues related to the role of ethnographic knowledge produced and the inevitable affective implications arising from the process. The anthropologist, then, becomes a witness, and the relationship developed with the interlocutors becomes one of growing complicity.

This entire process can be described as a process of growing affection (Favret-Saada 2012), where the access and knowledge produced by the anthropologist are directly associated with deepening effective relationships with a specific population or interlocutor. Furthermore, from the context of war and extreme violence, additional ethical dilemmas emerge, such as what to do when that interlocutor who was so valuable to the research is no longer alive. What is the possible treatment of ethnographic data, and how is it possible to honour their existence with all its complexity?

Paper short abstract:

This paper looks at the politics and discourse of polarisation in a small Polish town amidst 2023 election tensions, drawing on 13 months of ethnographic fieldwork to examine the affective experiences of political antagonism and its negotiation by political actors and the local community.

Paper long abstract:

This paper examines the politics and discourse of polarisation during a period of heightened political tension in the run-up to the parliamentary elections in Poland in October 2023. Based on 13 months of ethnographic fieldwork in north-central Poland, it looks at populist mobilisation and everyday politics in the eighth year of the rule of illiberal right-wing Law and Justice (PiS). The research sheds light on the ramifications of PiS's rise to power, which has been seen as emblematic of a crisis of the hegemonic ideal of European liberal democracy that emerged during Poland's post-1989 'transition' period. The two terms of PiS rule have been dominated by controversy and protests over the rule of law, disregard for liberal democratic principles and repeated clashes with the EU. On the one hand, there is mounting concern over deepening political polarisation and erosion of civic community; on the other, there is recognition that it has led to unprecedented political mobilisation.

Through exploring polarisation's affective resonances and grounded negotiations amongst a small-town community and local political actors, the paper looks at how multifaceted turbulence filters into localised contexts as Poland grapples with the complex entanglements and reverberations of economic, political and social crises. Furthermore, the paper reflects on the role of anthropology in elucidating the dynamics that shape the senses of solidarity and antagonism that underpin polarised contexts during times of political upheaval.