Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Julia Kunikowska
(University of Warsaw)
Shuhua Chen (Norwegian University of Science and Technology)
Piotr Cichocki (University of Warsaw)
Tomasz Rakowski (University of Warsaw)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Panel
Short Abstract:
This panel examines the transformation of researchers through anthropological writing and the reflection of their positionality. We focus on language's role in knowledge creation, challenging the primacy of academic English,provoking discussions on fluid identities and 'homeless' language practices.
Long Abstract:
In this panel we wish to explore whether anthropologists, as writers, find a sense of belonging (‘making ourselves at home') through our writing (Helena Wulff) or if we perceive the act of writing rather as a nomadic endeavour. We aim to reflect on how anthropological writing process may transform a researcher from a person who collects experience into a person who shapes a sort of self-knowledge, and how these moments of transformation are conditioned by the writer’s positionality. We are interested in the multi-layered nature of this process, as there are more transitions than just between the reality (and languages) in which we conduct research and the text that invites a reader to draw the knowledge.
We take into account the multiplicity of languages, their powerfulness (James Clifford) or weakness, their universality or limited reach, various connections with positionalities, ways of thinking and acting. We encourage discussion about transitions between languages, where the standard of academic English becomes both an opportunity for common knowledge and a threat to other epistemologies and sensitivities. Thus, we intend to provoke thinking about the practice of writing as ‘Wanderers across Language’ (Trinh Minh-Ha), which requires abandoning assumptions about coherence between identity (professional, national, class), home and language, where the idea of professional language constructs ‘an illusory secure and fixed place’ (ibidem). Instead, we propose a discussion about writing experiments that begin from a ‘homeless’ language.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Paper Short Abstract:
This paper explores the process of writing an autoethnography of 'eating sufficiency' as a form of existential transformation, intertwined with the concept of 'knowing sufficiency' (zhizu in Chinese)—a term that encompasses both individual self-cultivation and a transformative approach to envisioning climate futures.
Paper Abstract:
‘Eating Sufficiency’ is an autoethnographic exploration spanning a year, designed to illuminate the intricate and evolving terrain of my inner world as it responds to my bodily engagement with the concept of 'sufficiency' in everyday food practices. This experimental endeavour begins as a critique of what Michael D. Jackson (2013) terms the “hegemony of the macrocosm”—the dominance of technological, economic, and political solutions to climate change. 'Eating Sufficiency' is not ecological innovation in the form of gleaming solar panels or humming electric cars, but rather an invitation to turn inward and reflect on how we nourish ourselves in harmony with nature in everyday food practice. This paper partially unfolds the process of writing the autoethnography as a form of existential transformation, intertwined with the notion of ‘knowing sufficiency’ (zhizu in Chinese)—a term that embraces both individual self-cultivation and a transformative way of envisioning climate futures. Specifically, in my practice of ‘eating sufficiency,’ I draw on the method of the koan (or gong-an in Chinese)—a form of puzzling inquiry that mystifies and compels us to move beyond rational or habitual responses to doubt (Jackson 2019). This practice fosters new modes of understanding, encouraging epistemological fluidity and an openness to ambiguity that can enrich and deepen (self)inquiry. By highlighting somatic and sensory experiences, the practice of koan challenges conventional modes of knowledge production (Chang 2021), subtly yet profoundly transforming my understanding of the self, others, and the environment throughout a year of autoethnographic self-exploration.
Paper Short Abstract:
The presentation describes the navigation across Polish, Chichewa, Chitumbuka, colloquial English, and academic English during ethnographic fieldwork in Malawi. This complexity affected the practices of writing, conceptualization, and dialogue, causing the impossibility of establishing a singular "home" language. Commenting on that, I ask about the potential for multilingual, "meta-media" ethnographic methodologies.
Paper Abstract:
Drawing on James Clifford's assertion that "relations of 'weak' and 'strong' languages govern the international flow of knowledge" (1986), this presentation describes a research project on voice and sound practices in Malawi, conducted by a Central European, Polish-speaking ethnographer. During this research, the relational process commenced with learning Chichewa and Chitumbuka, languages prevalent in northern Malawi. Subsequent methodological approaches included trilingual (Polish, English, Chitumbuka) fieldnotes drafting, interviews and conversations with polyglot research collaborators and other local subjects, and strategic decisions about which languages to use in writing the final ethnographies.
In this understanding, the ethnography—here defined as the "art of description" (Ingold, 2014)—is an effect of an intricate weave of pre-discursive practices and experiences. It is followed by a complex writing process that transcends divisions between asymmetrical languages. The research project navigated between languages (Polish, Chichewa, Chitumbuka, colloquial English, academic English), with no singular "home" language given a priori. By critically examining the presumptive neutrality of academic English as a default linguistic framework, the presentation suggests that such a methodological choice dissolves significant dimensions of reflexive knowledge—both my own and that of my collaborators. I thus raise the question of the potential for multilingual, "meta-media" (Flusser) ethnographies to fulfil the transformative character of the discipline.
Paper Short Abstract:
The dominance of English restricts the epistemological diversity of anthropology, privileging standardized frameworks over linguistically situated knowledge. Writing in one’s native language enables richer, more authentic expressions of thought. This paper advocates for re-embracing linguistic plurality within the discipline.
Paper Abstract:
As an ethnologist with German as my native language, writing in English often feels like a balancing act between access and loss. While it offers entry into global academic discourse, it significantly restricts my ability to convey nuances, humor, or rhythm that come naturally in my native tongue. This tension is not merely aesthetic or stylistic but reflects deeper issues rooted in linguistic relativism and the complex relationship between language, thought, and epistemology.
Language shapes not only what we express but also how we think and understand. Writing in a non-native language imposes specific frameworks of thought and epistemic norms that privilege certain perspectives while marginalizing others. The dominance of academic English exemplifies a standardization that risks eroding the diversity of culturally and linguistically situated ways of knowing. For anthropology—a discipline that seeks to explore and embrace alternative conceptual worlds—this epistemological reductionism contradicts its core mission.
Writing in one’s native language, I argue, is not simply an aesthetic or personal choice but a practice with profound epistemological implications. It allows us to articulate ideas, experiences, and insights more authentically, remaining closer to the cultural and linguistic contexts in which they are rooted. How might our understanding of anthropological knowledge evolve if we challenge linguistic uniformity and embrace multilingualism in academic writing? By reclaiming the practice of writing in our native languages, anthropological knowledge production can achieve greater depth, diversity, and contextual sensitivity, transforming both how and what we know.
Paper Short Abstract:
In my paper I argue that writer’s and anthropological awareness can be constructed in opposition to new managements in academic humanities. Therefore, this paper presents how various ways of writing may transgress neoliberal academia and form instead a mode of ethnographic experimentation.
Paper Abstract:
In this paper I will argue that writer’s and anthropological awareness can be constructed in opposition to some new managements in academic humanities, namely against the recommendations to “write a lot” and achieve the “productive academic writing” Therefore, I will show how some ways of writing and forms of anthropological understanding may transgress such neoliberal recommendations and form instead a mode of ethnographic experimentation and specific anthropological sensibility. I will present how some of my recent ethnographic accounts were re-developed and re-built in theatre-laboratories in Węgajty in northern Poland. I aim to prove that such acting-writing can be a legitimate perspective and can bring a new vocabulary for anthropological knowledge-making. Spread in time, those activities can select, contrast, and empower ethnographic memories: motives, concepts, phantasmagorias, and thus can escape the linear time order of the text. They may become a part of the process of constructing/educating attention and at the same time document the very intimate and affective sphere of the knowledge obtained during the fieldwork.
Paper Short Abstract:
In this paper, I will delve into the complex identities of interdisciplinary anthropologists, which, based on my experiences, appear to become more pronounced during the writing phase than during the fieldwork itself. I will analyse anthropological writing as a nomadic and fluid process. Additionally, I will explore the conflicts and shifts among the various scientific languages used by interdisciplinary anthropologists and will attempt to determine whether finding a fixed identity is possible at the end of the research process.
Paper Abstract:
In this paper I will explore the nuanced and often implicit identities of interdisciplinary anthropologists, which, based on my observations, tend to develop more significantly during the phase of writing a text (based on field research) than during the field research itself. I will examine anthropological writing as nomadic and underdetermined, as it not always results in a clear definition of the researcher's identity at the end of the writing process. To illustrate these points, I will reference my research on Wolica, a village that became part of Poland's capital and began experiencing various modernization processes towards the end of the 20th century. I will talk about the transformation of my writing, which has evolved over the past 6 years; from the initial stage, triggered by Herzfeld's “productive discomfort” (1992), to drawing on material collected and evoked the use of tools of research in action (Bloch 2011), historical research (Filipkowski 2005) and autoethnographic endevours (Kacperczyk 2014). I will discuss the conflicts that may arise during the creation of a text and the transitions between the scientific languages from which an interdisciplinary anthropologist can draw.