Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

The paper addresses a case study of an anthropological project on gender and family which provided grounds for further political play. The practical logic vs. formal logic at work, the alteration of semantics, the role of “evidence,” and the part anthropology plays in the process are analysed.

Paper long abstract

The paper is based on a case study of public reaction to a national grant for an anthropological project on same-sex parenting in Latvia. Along with the two other projects, one on researching anti-gender discourse and the other on glaciers in Antarctica, it was deemed to be an “irrelevant” undertaking at the age of national insecurity and militarisation needs. The same-sex parenting project was considered “dangerous” as it contained a policy component communicating the needs of the families where same-sex adults raised children and thus propagated an “undesirable” model of cohabiting. Thirdly, it helped populist and right-wing parties gain a floor and influence policy, opening pre-election campaigning earlier than usual and discussing research grants not only on public and social media but also in parliament. The analysis of the discussion reveals the practical logic vs. formal logic at work, altering the semantics, the role of “evidence,” and the part anthropology plays in the process.