Panel no. 101 - Progressive/Regressive Visions of the Future? Towards a Dialectical "Next Generation Anthropology" of Social Movements


Convenor

Title Dr First name Ana Last name Ivasiuc
Institution Philipps University Marburg City Marburg Country DE

Co-Convenor

Title Dr First name Agnes Last name Gagyi
Institution name University of Gothenburg City Gothenburg Country SE

Panel

Panel title

Progressive/Regressive Visions of the Future? Towards a Dialectical "Next Generation Anthropology" of Social Movements

Panel abstract

Sherry Ortner (2016) argued that following anthropology's dark turn, focusing on the plight of subaltern groups under neoliberal crises, we should now turn towards an "anthropology of the good" that can uncover what people conceive as "the good life", happiness, and moralities of togetherness that could replace the neoliberal project. A growing corpus of anthropology is now devoting attention to social movements' alternative visions of the future, and to the emergence of new economic and social models grounded in solidarity, ecological sustainability, and conviviality. Yet phenomena such as the recrudescence of the far-right have also become crucial research topics. Anthropologists have scrutinized the discourses and practices of various "unlikeable others" (Pasieka 2019), taking seriously the moral rationalities of such actors. These recent developments in anthropology bring into the spotlight a series of empirical, theoretical, ethical, and epistemological questions. What are the visions of the future that various regressive/progressive social movements develop and perform? (How) Do such visions come into dialogue with each other? How are anthropologists dealing - methodologically, ethically, theoretically, and politically - with such regressive/progressive visions of the future? Is the regressive/progressive distinction actually tenable epistemologically? How can a dialogue be articulated between the anthropology of the far-right and "the anthropology of the good", and how can they come together in the process of theorization? How can we think of a "next generation anthropology" that, while pursuing critique, moves dialectically between various visions of the future deployed by social movements?

IUAES Commission