Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 224 items for :

  • Refine by Access: All content x
  • Refine by Content Type: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Open access

Geoffrey Aung

:// . Arnold , Dennis , and Geoffrey Aung . 2011 . “ Exclusion to visibility, vulnerability to voice: Informal economy workers in the Mekong countries .” Discussion paper prepared for Oxfam

Restricted access

Liberal Whispers and Propaganda Fears

The American Jewish Committee and Israel’s Palestinian Minority, 1948–1966

Geoffrey P. Levin

, Geoffrey P. 2017 . “ Arab Students, American Jewish Insecurities, and the End of Pro-Arab Politics in Mainstream America, 1952–1973 .” Arab Studies Journal 25 ( 1 ): 30 – 59 . Loeffler , James. 2013 . “ ‘The Conscience of America’: Human Rights

Open access

Staying Tuned

Connections beyond ‘the Field’

Geoffrey Hughes and Anna-Maria Walter

(Anna-Maria Walter and Geoffrey Hughes) work. This trend has been usefully theorized already as ‘non-digital-centric-ness’ ( Pink et al. 2016 ), where the digital is simply part of the day-to-day background of community life rather than its organizing

Open access


Piracy, Protection, and the Anthropology of Law At Sea

Geoffrey Hughes, Naor Ben-Yehoyada, Judith Scheele, and Jatin Dua

and Geoffrey Hughes for their comments on earlier versions of this text. References Algazi , G. ( 2002 ), ‘ Some Problems with Reciprocity ’, ÉNDOXA: Series Filosóficas , no. 15 : 43 – 50 . doi: 10.5944/endoxa.15.2002.5035 . Appadurai

Full access

Travel as Imperial Strategy

George Nathaniel Curzon Goes East, 1887-1894

Geoffrey Nash

Sometimes a travel theory is enunciated with such transparency as to seem almost a caricature. A key aspect of the debate surrounding Edward Said’s Orientalism has been the argument, adduced by such writers as Reina Lewis (1996), Lisa Lowe (1991), Billy Melman (1992), Dennis Porter (1991) et al., that Said’s construct disallows a space for multivalent positionings within the discourse of Orientalism. In this essay it is not my intention to rescue Said’s thesis from these critics, or to attempt a revision of his correlation of Orientalism with imperialism. My subject can be seen to justify Eurzon’s inclusion, alongside contemporaries like Balfour and Cromer, within that bloc of imperial patronage that sought to inscribe the East within the construct of Western knowledge/power which Said termed Orientalism. As enunciations of an aesthetic of travel, or codifications of imperial administration, Curzon’s writings rarely digress from Foucault’s equation of knowledge and power. But I intend also to problematise the confidence of imperial mastery in Curzon’s Orientalism by articulating the interior anxieties it seeks to cover by its political/racial logocentrism.

Open access


Legal regimes under pandemic conditions: A comparative anthropology

Geoffrey Hughes

As it has spread globally, the pathogen SARS-CoV-2 (known colloquially as the coronavirus) has already caused untold suffering, with more most certainly to come. Yet as the virus afflicts, it has also encountered a range of human responses – from initial indifference and outright denial in parts of the Anglo-American West to society-wide mobilizations in much of the rest of the world. In doing so, the virus has become a sort of diagnostic tool that can reveal a lot about any body politic that it happens to enter, something we attempt to leverage in this issue's forum through reflections from ethnographers working in both India (Dey) and the United States (Brinkworth et al., McGranahan).

Free access


Cosmopolitan politesse, continued

Geoffrey Hughes

This issue’s forum continues a lively discussion of Nigel Rapport’s notion of ‘cosmopolitan politesse’ that was previously featured in these pages in the summer of 2018. Rapport has long proposed this sort of politesse as a ‘form of virtue’ and ‘good manners’ (2018: 93) premised on ‘the ontological reality of human individuality’, which in turn necessitates an ‘interactional code’ according to which we must presume both ‘common humanity’ but also ‘distinct individuality’ to the point where we ‘classif[y] the Other in no more substantive fashion than this’ (92). Given anthropology’s history of intricately taxonomising humans according to various criteria, this is indeed a challenging proposal – all the more so in the context of legal anthropology, where being subject to specific norms and laws is often taken to be constitutive of distinctive subjectivities, sensibilities and survival strategies. In this issue, Don Gardner responds, directing his critical attention towards the notion of personhood undergirding Rapport’s plea for a revitalised Kantian liberalism in an era of resurgent xenophobia and ethnonationalism. In the process, we see two accomplished scholars taking positions within (and consciously outside of) a whole range of classical debates in the Western philosophical cannon with pressing relevance for contemporary legal anthropology, from nature versus nurture to free will versus determinism, individualism versus collectivism and structure versus agency.

Restricted access

Geoffrey Bindman


Antisemitism is hostility to Jews as Jews, but defining antisemitism is complicated by Zionism and the existence of the State of Israel. The fundamental right to freedom of expression is threatened by the misuse of a definition of antisemitism and claimed examples of antisemitic conduct that encourage confusion between antisemitism and criticism of the policies and practices of the Israeli government and its institutions. The right to express criticism and to debate such policies and practices must not be suppressed by reliance on unsubstantiated claims of antisemitism.

Restricted access

Geoffrey Hughes

In 2018, social anthropology finds itself increasingly concerned with its technical, legal and political conditions of possibility. The long‐term effects of austerity, financialisation and the technological transformation of media on teaching, research and publishing have led to intense struggles over the labour and property regimes underpinning the discipline. In responding to these challenges, anthropologists seem to be re‐conceptualising their own personhood and labour through the diverse conceptualisations of their interlocutors. However, it is also important to remember what makes social anthropology and its unique professional challenges but a small facet of a larger human condition. By way of conclusion, I offer kinship (the public's constitutive other) as one potential means of grappling with the limitations of social anthropology's own publicity.