• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

Article

Rethinking Euro-anthropology: part three. Early career scholars forum

Social Anthropology. 2016. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 353-379.
Martínez F., Ivancheva M., Simoni V., Frederiksen M., Jiménez L., Hirvi L., Pobłocki K., Di Puppo L., Martínez D., Sherouse P., Testa A., Gutiérrez A., Starzmann M., Wadle H., Peacock V.

Anthropology has gone through many crises; yet in periods when the basis of our discipline is being shaken, or when the practice – as traditionally understood – is put at risk, anthropologists feel a need to retreat and engage in dialogue with peers in order to build up a stronger scaffolding and agree on a politics of maintenance (Ingold 1997). The changes that our discipline has been undergoing over recent decades have accelerated, affecting the methodologies used, the themes being addressed and the labour conditions of practitioners (cf. Baiburin 2004). By re-opening the debate about anthropology’s raison d’être, this Forum also questions the very possibilities of critique inside the field of anthropology at, with and through Europe.