Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

In the wake of the covid-19 pandemic public interest in prepping – i.e. preparing oneself for a future crisis – has surged. By investing in material 'preps' and skills, preppers strive to insure themselves against an uncertain future, getting ready for the 'when' (not the 'i'f) of a coming crisis.

Paper long abstract:

The interest in prepping – i.e. the practice of preparing oneself, one’s home and family for a future crisis – has grown in Sweden and other western countries in recent years, reaching a peak in the wake of the covid-19 pandemic. As a cultural phenomenon, prepping exists as an intersection of sub-cultural community, hobby activity, civil defense and consumer landscape, tracing its roots to the more militaristic, North American survivalist movement. Numerous blogs, podcast and social media forums have popped up, dedicated to how individuals can take steps towards preparing for a dystopic future and what it may bring – from temporary blackouts, to financial troubles or total societal collapse. There is also no shortage of commercial actors catering to the wants of the preppers, marketing foodstuffs with long shelf-life, preparedness kits and other survival equipment. Investing in goods and skills for long-term survival is at the core of prepping, but what is it that preppers are preparing for and what understanding of the future does the preparations reflect? This paper will discuss prepping as way of relating to and managing orientations towards an uncertain future in everyday life. The phenomenon will be examined through the lens of late modernity consumerism, individualism and nostalgia. As many preppers strive towards self-reliance and the reclamation of the skills and knowledge of yore, lost to modern civilization, they are at once oriented towards the past and that which is not-yet-here – getting ready for the 'when' (not the 'if') of a coming crisis.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

Could fluidity and flexibility of cultures be one of the solutions to more balanced ecosystems? Can anthropology, while being an “inaccurate science” that studies other cultural contexts, represent as doable other (more ecologically sustainable) lifestyles, product of diverse cultural values?

Paper long abstract:

During a small fieldwork I started in Australia, an Aboriginal person I talked with told me that their cultures never stagnated: in fact, in order to survive colonization, they had to adapt, and he brought the example of a plant that got imported in the country. Aboriginal people learnt to use that plant for traditional medicine; the government had planned to spend thousands of dollars into poison to get rid of that, considering it as a harming weed, but in the end they managed to find an agreement with the Aboriginal communities of the area, so that they would use the plant, and the government would not need to waste money.

If we look at the environmental challenges we are facing nowadays, we can see that culture plays a big role not only in how these challenges are approached (e.g. bushfires that hit Australia last summer), but also in how they can be triggered by particular cultural aspects more than others. Ethnological research, in its fluidity and uncertainty, emphasises in turn the fluidity of cultures, and despite some of them being considered more “stabile” than others, they are still changeable and challengeable under many aspects.

By learning to appreciate fluidity, changeability, and even inaccuracy, can bring the cultural context that we give for granted to challenge itself, especially with regard to some aspects, and to understand and accept that there are also other ways of living the world, which can all bring positive inputs in these times of deep uncertainty.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

This paper explores uncertainty in the context of mobility experiences and rules. It reflects on the lived experiences of qualified migrants who face the multiple predicaments of mobility, and who engage with work future in the face of uncertainty.

Paper long abstract:

The condition of uncertainty is now becoming ordinary for many people who live the effects, emergencies, and rhythms of our contemporary times, including migrants and an increasing number of workers. Undoubtedly, these are times in which “reality is experienced as contingent and uncertain, with lasting forms yet to be made” (Thomassen 2014: 117), in which humans are confronted with an unprecedented sense of precariousness. If we agree with Baumann when he says that “what is novel is not uncertainty; what is novel is a realization that uncertainty is here to stay,” now more than ever it becomes urgent to “develop an art of living permanently with uncertainty”, to accept and cohabit with the ambivalence of being in between multiple and uncertain routes, meanings, and events that represent the fabric of our lives. This paper explores uncertainty in the context of mobility experiences and rules. In particular, it looks at the lived experiences of qualified migrants, who face the multiple predicaments of mobility, and who engage with work future in the face of uncertainty. I draw upon my fieldworks with qualified migrants in Switzerland, including refugees and partners of professional migrants. These migrants are frequently encouraged to endorse those ‘mobility rules’ that exacerbate their uncertain position, and that immobilize them in a limbo situation where planning a career becomes difficult. And yet, these qualified migrants can use immobility as space and time for building upon their capacity to aspire and envisioning alternative futures in spite of uncertainty.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

The paper investigates the constructs of precarity in illicit seasonal cannabis labor and how young temporary cannabis trimmers navigate uncertainty through a negotiation of their capitals and reflection of their positionality in the hopes to gain from the experience.

Paper long abstract:

This paper investigates how seven young Europeans and Americans navigate the experience of illegal, seasonal cannabis work in California. It shows that the work's main characteristics (cannabis, illegality, time and place, (im)mobility, and uncertainty) give rise to multiple forms of precarity and inform the experience's symbolic value. The research draws on seven individual interviews and a theoretical framework inspired by perspectives on precarity, agency, and mobility. The analysis of the seasonal cannabis workers' labor, journeys, and meaning-making process demonstrates how the young people in this study navigate the unique labor experience through their different habitus and capitals (Bourdieu, 1977, 1986). Social capital, mobility capital, and what I coin trim capital are particularly beneficial in the workers' navigation of illegal, seasonal cannabis work in California.

The paper contributes to an under-researched area in cannabis scholarship as it explores first-hand experiences of the cannabis workers' labor conditions and employment, mobility strategies, and ways of making sense of their experience. Moreover, the research nuances the argument in precarity literature that the term precarity's analytical potential lies primarily in its ability to uncover acts of resistance. Instead, the paper finds different expressions of agency; the young cannabis workers do not resist labor precarity but rather choose to navigate the trimmigrant experience as it provides a form of symbolic value. I argue that illegal, temporary cannabis work in California can be both marginalizing and empowering and that the experience is significantly shaped by who steps into the social field and what resources they have and acquire.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

In my paper, I would like to discuss the problem of disagreeing with one’s empirical material and suggest “studying what is not there” as an uncertain research method. How can one justify focusing on something that is absent in the material without appearing stubborn?

Paper long abstract:

The hermeneutic research process begins with the researcher’s preconceptions, and proceeds to making sense of the research field and material. Reflecting what is not mentioned in the empirical material is an important part of source criticism. But if the researcher decides to focus on something absent in the material, and refuses to adjust the research questions, is it stubbornness and unwillingness to co-operate with the material? Is the researcher letting the preconceptions rule his or her judgement? What are the rules for following your instincts?

In my ethnological PhD research about the changing museum practices in the late 20th century Finnish museum field, I have come across such a dilemma. I make use of archived interview material, gathered as part of a Finnish Museum History Project, carried out before my own research project and without my own involvement. In my analysis, I have paid attention to how the interviewees construct communities and hierarchies through practices: how they understand “real museum work” and who actually carries it out in the museum field. Reading the material, I have been surprised by how little attention the interviewers have paid to the emergence of new occupations, such as museum educators. Is this a mere coincidence or an act of exclusion? Am I jumping to conclusions?

There are many things uncertain in the professional museum field, but I want to focus on studying what is not there as an uncertain research method. In my example, I believe it makes sense, but the approach also contains risks. Ethnological research relies on the ethnologist’s skills and “hunch”, and concentrating on something that is missing from the material depends on the researcher and his or her background knowledge and understanding of valid contexts. Are they enough to justify such an approach?