Field is Upon Us

Today, we confront existential threats to humanity which are inextricable from neoliberal fascist processes.Anthropologists who study fascism select subjects and sites (almost exclusively outside academia) that we identify with fascism in order to do so.Traditional hierarchical, positivistic dichotomies like researcher versus subject and home versus field have long been critiqued within anthropology as racist and colonialist.Yet the notion persists that academics are somehow immune to the embodiment of fascism, and that the ivory tower is a fascism-free space.Similarly, we are told that when we apply our work to the "real world," our "engagement" must take the form of pragmatic solidarity or policy advising-rather than revolutionary anti-fascist struggle-even when our collective survival is at stake.To propose an antifascist anthropology (versus an anthropology of fascism) is to take an explicit political stance.In this essay, I argue that antifascist anthropology must take the form of strategic, somatic solidarity ethnography.Framing our work this way requires us to reimagine the ethnographic project-currently structured by individualistic neoliberal logics of funding and employment-as instead part of an embodied, collective, emancipatory project of anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist struggle.For decades, anthropologists doing "engaged" or "public" work have argued that their work should be measured by the academy in terms of real-world impact, rather than impact factors

Field (mathematics · Anthropological Studies and Insights · Anthropology: Ethics, History, Culture · Colonial History and Postcolonial Studies · Mathematics

• Forging an Anthropology of Neoliberal Fascism

  Adrienne Pine•Public Anthropologist•2019

  Incluir item

• Revolution as a care plan

  Open Access•Adrienne Pine•Social Science & Medicine•2013

  Incluir item

• The Agony of Flint

  Brian Mckenna•Anthropology Now•2018

  Incluir item