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.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Jeanne Féaux de la Croix
(University of Bern)
Aksana Ismailbekova (Leibniz-Zentrum Moderner Orient (ZMO))
Malika Bahovadinova (The University of Amsterdam)
Jeanine Dagyeli (University of Vienna and Austrian Academy of Sciences)
Send message to Convenors
- Formats:
- Roundtable
- Mode:
- Face-to-face
- Sessions:
- Friday 26 July, -
Time zone: Europe/Madrid
Short Abstract:
This round table explores dynamics of anthropological knowledge production on Central Asia, and other ‘minor-ized’ regions. How is anthropological theory grounded, recognized and distributed? How do forms of engaged anthropology relate to ‘regional debates’ and ‘high theory’?
Long Abstract:
In anthropological knowledge production, some regions garner more interest than others. Minorized regions rarely become the site of generalizing theoretical debates. Unless findings closely follow theory developed elsewhere, writing produced in and on these regions is often side-lined e.g. in major journals. These dynamics profoundly impact scholars, the discipline, and often local communities.
This round table explores the intersecting dynamics of anthropological knowledge production on Central Asia, and other ‘minor-ized’ regions (Herzfeld 1987). Do these regions only become recognized as sites of ‘global’ theory-production at the height of crises, such as the Fall of the Soviet Union? How do colonial legacies of knowledge-production marginalize parts of the world outside anglophone empires (Kojanić 2020)? Using ‘The Central Asian World’ anthropology handbook as a starting point, we invite a discussion of temporal, geographic and political imaginaries to ask: how is anthropological theory grounded, recognized and distributed (Chatterji 2004, Kilani 2012)? Does anthropology with a strong regionalist commitment have a greater chance of producing response-able and impactful knowledge outside academia? When do more embedded connections to state interests and funding priorities undermine that potential?
In the wake of the ‘anti-colonial’ Soviet empire, vibrant decolonizing discussions are taking place with unexpected twists, challenging historical narratives and redefining anthropological purpose (Bissenova and Medeuova 2016). How does this approach inform notions of ‘Central Asia’ and other regions? How do forms of engaged anthropology relate to ‘regionalism’ and ‘high theory’? This discussion is hosted by Tajik, German and Kyrgyz scholars.
Accepted contributions:
Session 1 Friday 26 July, 2024, -Aeron O'Connor (University College London)
Contribution short abstract:
To reflect on Central Asia's changing relationship to anthropological theory and understand how it can straddle regional debates and high theory, I will look at sites of both abundant and sparse anthropological theory-making, examining issues of scale, knowledge-power and centre-periphery relations.
Contribution long abstract:
In response to this exciting call for participants, I would like to contribute to this roundtable discussion by comparing theory-making in Central Asia to other locales that have been the sites of abundant anthropological theory, such as Brazil, Mongolia, India, Siberia and Papua New Guinea. As someone working in Tajikistan, but trained in anthropology through primarily these and other ethnographic-theoretical sites (Central Asia-focused texts never featured on my module reading lists in the UK), I want to reflect on anthropological knowledge production across these contexts. I believe this will help us collectively think further about issues of scale, knowledge-power and centre-periphery relations within anthropological knowledge production and theory making. My own work has so far tried to engage theoretically with histories of knowledge production, affective relations, social mobility, as well as the conceptual relationship between orientalism and cosmopolitanism, all of which have challenged me to ask the very questions this roundtable asks around what makes Central Asia theoretically appealing and unique, yet often challenging within a wider, non-regional anthropological community. I believe this will complement the contributions of other roundtable participants as we discuss how anthropology of Central Asia can straddle regional debates and high theory.
Julie McBrien (Amsterdam)
Contribution short abstract:
Reflecting on two research projects I carried out in Kyrgyzstan on sensitive topics (i.e. Islam and gender) this paper asks whether subjects like these should be investigated or if the danger of feeding stereotypical tropes on an ‘unknown region’ is too large.
Contribution long abstract:
As the roundtable organizers point out, Central Asia is often ‘minor-ized’ in wider anthropology. Even among anthropologists, who stylize themselves as highly literate global citizens, Central Asia remains the proverbial ‘blank spot’ on their mental world maps and in their anthropological theories. The situation is no different outside the discipline where Euro-American social scientists, governments, (I)NGOs, research funding bodies, and even (social) media publics fail to notice the region except when it comes to its perceived threats to, or apparent lapses from the models of, the so-called West (e.g. Islamic terrorism, full democratization, or gender equality)
This dual marginalization creates added problems for anthropologists investigating sensitive and/or politicized topics in Central Asia (e.g. Islam or gender). The potential for the exoticization, orientalization or religio-racialization of the region increases. Reflecting on research projects I have carried out in Kyrgyzstan on topics like these (i.e. Islam, religious marriage, and bride abduction) this paper asks whether these subjects should be investigated at all or if the danger of feeding these tropes is too large. Following Deeb (2010), and in light of recent discussions of decolonization in Central Asia, I ask whether we can do “honestly critical work about gender and sexuality without fueling racist stereotypes” (Deeb 2010) and what role the subjectivity of the researcher plays in these investigations.
Nikolaos Olma (Leibniz-Zentrum Moderner Orient)
Contribution short abstract:
Theorisation derived from long-term engagement with local communities is key to anthropological work on Central Asia. It allows for findings to be extrapolated and juxtaposed across spatial and temporal scales in order to produce an understanding of human societies that transcends local contexts.
Contribution long abstract:
Does theorisation in anthropology, as put by a colleague in the conclusion to The Central Asian World, result in work that is “unreadable and inaccessible to those who haven’t mastered academese?” Do scholars who produce theoretical work do so to “only impress their peers or those that they highly regard in the profession?” There is no doubt that much of what is produced by anthropologists is often overtheorised, as we all strive to publish in leading journals that meet the demands of neoliberal academe. Much of this theorisation indeed can be overly (and unnecessarily) complex—as someone who looks back on his assemblage-theory-inspired PhD dissertation with some regret, I can personally attest to that. But that does not change the fact that theorisation derived from long-term engagement with local communities is key to anthropological work. It allows for findings to be extrapolated and juxtaposed across spatial and temporal scales in order to produce an understanding of human societies that transcends local contexts. Calls for a less unreadable and inaccessible anthropology are most welcome as criticism, but they seem to treat an entire discipline as method, synonimising it with its signature tools of ethnography and participant observation and mistaking it for a mere endeavour to record local practices. Somewhat more dangerously, at a time when academic jobs in the social sciences and the humanities are more precarious than ever, such calls fall into the trap of relegating academic discourse in these disciplines to “academese,” inadvertently legitimising their defunding.
Istvan Santha (Hungarian Research Network)
Contribution short abstract:
The proposed presentation describes Hungarian research tradition in Central Asia, based on the legend that Hungarians arrived in Europe from Inner Asia and shows how this position can be used by Hungarian researchers and accepted by "big empires" and local peoples (also recently).
Contribution long abstract:
The proposed presentation describes Hungarian research tradition in Central Asia, based on the legend that Hungarians arrived in Europe from Inner Asia, and their ancient homeland and kindred peoples are still there. There is a tendency for Hungarian anthropologists, linguists, and folklore researchers to conduct fieldwork in various parts of Inner Asia. In these research projects, Hungarian researchers serve not exclusively pure colonial (political or economic) interests but also a so-called "mental imperialist" one when looking to establish lost relationships with kindred peoples in the East. In this way, Hungarians have a particular mid position and perspective between big empires (such as Russian and British) and local Central Asian (among others, Ozbeg, Kyrgyz, and Kazak) peoples. The proposed paper aims to show how this position can be used by Hungarian researchers and accepted by "big empires" and local peoples (also recently).