Panel

CfP „Ethno­gra­phies of expert knowl­edges in men­tal health, neu­ro­di­ver­gence, and disability”
10th Inter­na­tion­al Con­fer­ence on Ethnog­ra­phy and Qual­i­ta­tive Research Tren­to, Italy
July 10 to 12, 2025

Dead­line: 20 January

„Ethno­gra­phies of expert knowl­edges in men­tal health, neu­ro­di­ver­gence, and disability”

Nowa­days, there has been a «dis­cur­sive explo­sion» sur­round­ing men­tal health, dis­abil­i­ty, and neu­ro­di­ver­gence result­ing in a wide array of het­ero­ge­neous nar­ra­tives and rep­re­sen­ta­tions in pub­lic and aca­d­e­m­ic debates. Par­tic­u­lar­ly on dig­i­tal plat­forms, we wit­ness a rise in con­tent focused on «pos­i­tiv­i­ty» and the rever­sal of stig­ma. These can cer­tain­ly be seen as an incur­sion into the polit­i­cal sphere by mad/crip activism; how­ev­er, it is impor­tant to rec­og­nize how (part of) these dis­cours­es could be absorbed into a neolib­er­al frame­work. In a con­text of per­for­ma­tive and extrac­tivist log­ic, mad/crip/neurodivergent pos­i­tiv­i­ty risks becom­ing yet anoth­er tool that decrees the «sal­va­tion» of those with the resources to fit into the frame­work of «diver­si­ty» val­ori­sa­tion, while lead­ing to process­es of «mon­stri­fi­ca­tion» towards those who devi­ate from this con­struc­tion of subjectivity.

Cen­tral in oper­at­ing this dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion is the role of expert knowl­edge. Although men­tal health, dis­abil­i­ty, and neu­ro­di­ver­gence remain still framed with­in a pre­dom­i­nant­ly bio­med­ical par­a­digm, a range of tech­ni­cal fig­ures are inter­ven­ing in the con­struc­tion of cat­e­gories and the «take charge of users». An arch­i­pel­ago of expert knowl­edges – social work­ers, legal actors, tutors, edu­ca­tion­al ser­vices, (for­mer) patients who take on roles as «expert users», NGO vol­un­teers – thus inter­vene in iden­ti­ty and rela­tion­al con­struc­tions, defin­ing life tra­jec­to­ries, pro­duc­ing spaces and ser­vices that inher­ent­ly nav­i­gate the con­sti­tu­tive ambi­gu­i­ty between care and con­trol, treat­ment and neglect. Among these are the social sci­ences, both in their pro­duc­tion of knowl­edge and in pro­vid­ing tools for social care prac­tices. They con­tribute to defin­ing, iden­ti­fy­ing, clas­si­fy­ing, and quan­ti­fy­ing the users, posi­tion­ing them with­in the grids of «deserving/appropriate» vs «irrecov­er­able» patient, «reha­bil­itable» vs excluded.

The cur­rent con­fig­u­ra­tion, result­ing from the dis­man­tling of nation­al social pro­tec­tion sys­tems in the wake of aus­ter­i­ty poli­cies and the shift of respon­si­bil­i­ty to the pri­vate sec­tor, rep­re­sents only the lat­est phase in a long-stand­ing process of dif­fer­en­tial inclu­sion and exclu­sion, deeply embed­ded in the very struc­ture of social wel­fare and the State itself.

Ethno­graph­ic prac­tice high­lights pow­er struc­tures, fos­ter­ing crit­i­cal reflec­tion on the role of social work and expert knowl­edges. This approach chal­lenges estab­lished insti­tu­tions and mod­els while also sit­u­at­ing the process­es sur­round­ing care and treat­ment with­in rela­tion­ships, con­texts, and every­day tactics.

We invite con­tri­bu­tions that address men­tal health, dis­abil­i­ty, and neu­ro­di­ver­gence, with­in and beyond the care/control bina­ry. We ask what is the role of «expert knowl­edges» – con­sid­ered in their sin­gu­lar­i­ty or inter­sec­tions – in the con­struc­tion of sub­jec­tiv­i­ties, in the pro­duc­tion of vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty, and in the process­es of dis­tinc­tion and frag­men­ta­tion of the user base; and how prac­tices of sub­trac­tion or resis­tance to such devices configure.

Open ques­tions

– What process­es shape the con­struc­tion of mean­ing around the cat­e­gories of vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty and fragili­ty (across dis­abil­i­ty, neu­ro­di­ver­gence, and men­tal health), and how do these cat­e­gories influ­ence social work in tak­ing charge and man­ag­ing users?
– How can an ethno­graph­ic cri­tique of con­cepts such as pater­nal­ism and pietism in social wel­fare be framed, start­ing from prac­tices of care, con­trol, neglect, and treatment?
– How do prac­tices of dis­tinc­tion with­in social ser­vices (broad­ly defined) emerge between the «deserv­ing» user and the «prob­lem­at­ic» user, and how do these distinctions—simultaneously prac­ti­cal, orga­ni­za­tion­al, and moral—affect the bal­ance between care and control?
– How does the rela­tion­ship between fam­i­lies, pub­lic ser­vices, and care­givers con­fig­ure the every­day dynam­ics of care and con­trol with­in a con­text of poly-cri­sis and dis­man­tling the wel­fare state? How do the «third sec­tor», human­i­tar­i­an orga­ni­za­tions, and vol­un­teer­ing intersect
in this relationship?
– How do mad/crip/neurodivergent sub­jec­ti­va­tion process­es unfold, both with­in and beyond med­ical­iza­tion and the fram­ing of ser­vice users?
– What impact do social inequalities—based on struc­tur­al axes of class, race, gen­der, sex­u­al­i­ties, and others—have on the ratio­nale of social ser­vices? How do these process­es influ­ence street-lev­el bureau­cra­cy prac­tices, and how do they shape sub­jec­ti­va­tion with­in these systems?
– What forms of with­draw­al and detach­ment from the con­trol­ling dimen­sions of social and clin­i­cal work exist, and what pos­si­bil­i­ties do they open up?
– What are the process­es of spa­tial­iza­tion of disability/neurodivergence/mental health, and how do they relate to social and clin­i­cal work? What are the geo­gra­phies of these process­es, and what do they add to our understanding?

Permalink

Call for papers for „Ethno­gra­phies of expert knowl­edges in men­tal health, neu­ro­di­ver­gence, and disability”
10th Inter­na­tion­al Con­fer­ence on Ethnog­ra­phy and Qual­i­ta­tive Research
July 10 to 12, 2025 

Dead­line Jan­u­ary 25th 

33. Ethno­gra­phies of expert knowl­edges in men­tal health, neu­ro­di­ver­gence, and disability.

Nowa­days, there has been a «dis­cur­sive explo­sion» sur­round­ing men­tal health, dis­abil­i­ty, and neu­ro­di­ver­gence result­ing in a wide array of het­ero­ge­neous nar­ra­tives and rep­re­sen­ta­tions in pub­lic and aca­d­e­m­ic debates. Par­tic­u­lar­ly on dig­i­tal plat­forms, we wit­ness a rise in con­tent focused on «pos­i­tiv­i­ty» and the rever­sal of stig­ma. These can cer­tain­ly be seen as an incur­sion into the polit­i­cal sphere by mad/crip activism; how­ev­er, it is impor­tant to rec­og­nize how (part of) these dis­cours­es could be absorbed into a neolib­er­al frame­work. In a con­text of per­for­ma­tive and extrac­tivist log­ic, mad/crip/neurodivergent pos­i­tiv­i­ty risks becom­ing yet anoth­er tool that decrees the «sal­va­tion» of those with the resources to fit into the frame­work of «diver­si­ty» val­ori­sa­tion, while lead­ing to process­es of «mon­stri­fi­ca­tion» towards those who devi­ate from this con­struc­tion of subjectivity.

Cen­tral in oper­at­ing this dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion is the role of expert knowl­edge. Although men­tal health, dis­abil­i­ty, and neu­ro­di­ver­gence remain still framed with­in a pre­dom­i­nant­ly bio­med­ical par­a­digm, a range of tech­ni­cal fig­ures are inter­ven­ing in the con­struc­tion of cat­e­gories and the «take charge of users». An arch­i­pel­ago of expert knowl­edges – social work­ers, legal actors, tutors, edu­ca­tion­al ser­vices, (for­mer) patients who take on roles as «expert users», NGO vol­un­teers – thus inter­vene in iden­ti­ty and rela­tion­al con­struc­tions, defin­ing life tra­jec­to­ries, pro­duc­ing spaces and ser­vices that inher­ent­ly nav­i­gate the con­sti­tu­tive ambi­gu­i­ty between care and con­trol, treat­ment and neglect. Among these are the social sci­ences, both in their pro­duc­tion of knowl­edge and in pro­vid­ing tools for social care prac­tices. They con­tribute to defin­ing, iden­ti­fy­ing, clas­si­fy­ing, and quan­ti­fy­ing the users, posi­tion­ing them with­in the grids of «deserving/appropriate» vs «irrecov­er­able» patient, «reha­bil­itable» vs excluded.

The cur­rent con­fig­u­ra­tion, result­ing from the dis­man­tling of nation­al social pro­tec­tion sys­tems in the wake of aus­ter­i­ty poli­cies and the shift of respon­si­bil­i­ty to the pri­vate sec­tor, rep­re­sents only the lat­est phase in a long-stand­ing process of dif­fer­en­tial inclu­sion and exclu­sion, deeply embed­ded in the very struc­ture of social wel­fare and the State itself.

Ethno­graph­ic prac­tice high­lights pow­er struc­tures, fos­ter­ing crit­i­cal reflec­tion on the role of social work and expert knowl­edges. This approach chal­lenges estab­lished insti­tu­tions and mod­els while also sit­u­at­ing the process­es sur­round­ing care and treat­ment with­in rela­tion­ships, con­texts, and every­day tactics.

We invite con­tri­bu­tions that address men­tal health, dis­abil­i­ty, and neu­ro­di­ver­gence, with­in and beyond the care/control bina­ry. We ask what is the role of «expert knowl­edges» – con­sid­ered in their sin­gu­lar­i­ty or inter­sec­tions – in the con­struc­tion of sub­jec­tiv­i­ties, in the pro­duc­tion of vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty, and in the process­es of dis­tinc­tion and frag­men­ta­tion of the user base; and how prac­tices of sub­trac­tion or resis­tance to such devices configure.

Open ques­tions

What process­es shape the con­struc­tion of mean­ing around the cat­e­gories of vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty and fragili­ty (across dis­abil­i­ty, neu­ro­di­ver­gence, and men­tal health), and how do these cat­e­gories influ­ence social work in tak­ing charge and man­ag­ing users?
How can an ethno­graph­ic cri­tique of con­cepts such as pater­nal­ism and pietism in social wel­fare be framed, start­ing from prac­tices of care, con­trol, neglect, and treatment?
How do prac­tices of dis­tinc­tion with­in social ser­vices (broad­ly defined) emerge between the «deserv­ing» user and the «prob­lem­at­ic» user, and how do these distinctions—simultaneously prac­ti­cal, orga­ni­za­tion­al, and moral—affect the bal­ance between care and control?
How does the rela­tion­ship between fam­i­lies, pub­lic ser­vices, and care­givers con­fig­ure the every­day dynam­ics of care and con­trol with­in a con­text of poly-cri­sis and dis­man­tling the wel­fare state? How do the «third sec­tor», human­i­tar­i­an orga­ni­za­tions, and vol­un­teer­ing inter­sect in this relationship?
How do mad/crip/neurodivergent sub­jec­ti­va­tion process­es unfold, both with­in and beyond med­ical­iza­tion and the fram­ing of ser­vice users?
What impact do social inequalities—based on struc­tur­al axes of class, race, gen­der, sex­u­al­i­ties, and others—have on the ratio­nale of social ser­vices? How do these process­es influ­ence street-lev­el bureau­cra­cy prac­tices, and how do they shape sub­jec­ti­va­tion with­in these systems?
What forms of with­draw­al and detach­ment from the con­trol­ling dimen­sions of social and clin­i­cal work exist, and what pos­si­bil­i­ties do they open up?
What are the process­es of spa­tial­iza­tion of disability/neurodivergence/mental health, and how do they relate to social and clin­i­cal work? What are the geo­gra­phies of these process­es, and what do they add to our understanding?

For any issues, don’t hes­i­tate to con­tact the con­venors at fabio.bertoni@ics.ulisboa.pt and luca.sterchele@unito.it.

Permalink

in-per­son pan­el P100 – Towards new alter­na­tives in social care: Tran­si­tions in the domes­tic, insti­tu­tion­al and com­mu­ni­ty care scenarios
9th APA (Asso­ci­ação Por­tugue­sa de Antropologia)
Caste­lo (Por­tu­gal)
14 to 18 July 2025

Abstracts are due by Jan­u­ary 13, 2025

https://apa2025.eventqualia.net/pt/inicio/painéis/chamada-comunicações/

We invite sub­mis­sions of papers in both Span­ish and Eng­lish that pro­vide new insights on this topic.

Abstract:
Care prac­tices have sig­nif­i­cant rela­tions to people’s exis­tence and social repro­duc­tion. Care­giv­ing involves a com­plex inter­ac­tion between stake­hold­ers in var­i­ous sce­nar­ios (domes­tic, insti­tu­tion­al, and com­mu­ni­ty-based). Indeed, care is pro­vid­ed through a chang­ing con­stel­la­tion of resources across fam­i­lies, the State, the mar­ket and civ­il soci­ety, all of which com­prise the insti­tu­tion­al struc­ture of social care. Sim­i­lar­ly, care is struc­tured not only by gen­der but also by age, class, and ethnic/national ori­gin. The tra­di­tion­al care options have been between domes­tic care and res­i­den­tial facil­i­ties. Insti­tu­tion­al­iza­tion in a res­i­den­tial care home is an option that is usu­al­ly reserved for wors­en­ing sit­u­a­tions of depen­dence. Age­ing in one’s own home is an aspi­ra­tion, but this often takes place in hous­ing and neigh­bor­hoods that are not adapt­ed to the needs of the age­ing, accel­er­at­ing their vul­ner­a­ble process­es. In addi­tion, ter­ri­to­r­i­al dis­par­i­ties (urban-rur­al areas) also account for inequal­i­ties in the access of care.
Our pan­el is ori­ent­ed towards iden­ti­fy­ing the ele­ments that can give rise to alter­na­tive for­mu­las for social care, which make it pos­si­ble to shift the cen­tral role played by fam­i­lies and women, favor­ing the dig­ni­fi­ca­tion of paid and unpaid care. To under­stand the expe­ri­ences in new care envi­ron­ments that try to fos­ter new forms of artic­u­la­tion between social agents and their care sur­round­ings (cohous­ing, care ecosys­tems, com­mu­ni­ties, etc.). We are inter­est­ed in con­tri­bu­tions that, based on ethno­graph­ic work and the­o­ret­i­cal reflec­tion, ana­lyze inno­v­a­tive for­mu­las in the artic­u­la­tion of long-term care providers, iden­ti­fy­ing their scope and lim­i­ta­tions when sub­vert­ing ter­ri­to­r­i­al, social and gen­der inequalities.

Permalink

CfP for pan­el on the top­ic „Towards new alter­na­tives in social care: Tran­si­tions in the domes­tic, insti­tu­tion­al and com­mu­ni­ty care scenarios”
9th APA – Asso­ci­ação Por­tugue­sa de Antropologia
Viana do Caste­lo (Por­tu­gal)
14–18 July, 2025

Dead­line 13 Jan­u­ary 2025: https://apa2025.eventqualia.net/pt/inicio/painéis/chamada-comunicações/
We invite sub­mis­sions of papers in both Span­ish and Eng­lish that pro­vide new insights on this topic.

Abstract:
Care prac­tices have sig­nif­i­cant rela­tions to people’s exis­tence and social repro­duc­tion. Care­giv­ing involves a com­plex inter­ac­tion between stake­hold­ers in var­i­ous sce­nar­ios (domes­tic, insti­tu­tion­al, and com­mu­ni­ty-based). Indeed, care is pro­vid­ed through a chang­ing con­stel­la­tion of resources across fam­i­lies, the State, the mar­ket and civ­il soci­ety, all of which com­prise the insti­tu­tion­al struc­ture of social care. Sim­i­lar­ly, care is struc­tured not only by gen­der but also by age, class, and ethnic/national ori­gin. The tra­di­tion­al care options have been between domes­tic care and res­i­den­tial facil­i­ties. Insti­tu­tion­al­iza­tion in a res­i­den­tial care home is an option that is usu­al­ly reserved for wors­en­ing sit­u­a­tions of depen­dence. Age­ing in one’s own home is an aspi­ra­tion, but this often takes place in hous­ing and neigh­bor­hoods that are not adapt­ed to the needs of the age­ing, accel­er­at­ing their vul­ner­a­ble process­es. In addi­tion, ter­ri­to­r­i­al dis­par­i­ties (urban-rur­al areas) also account for inequal­i­ties in the access of care.
Our pan­el is ori­ent­ed towards iden­ti­fy­ing the ele­ments that can give rise to alter­na­tive for­mu­las for social care, which make it pos­si­ble to shift the cen­tral role played by fam­i­lies and women, favor­ing the dig­ni­fi­ca­tion of paid and unpaid care. To under­stand the expe­ri­ences in new care envi­ron­ments that try to fos­ter new forms of artic­u­la­tion between social agents and their care sur­round­ings (cohous­ing, care ecosys­tems, com­mu­ni­ties, etc.). We are inter­est­ed in con­tri­bu­tions that, based on ethno­graph­ic work and the­o­ret­i­cal reflec­tion, ana­lyze inno­v­a­tive for­mu­las in the artic­u­la­tion of long-term care providers, iden­ti­fy­ing their scope and lim­i­ta­tions when sub­vert­ing ter­ri­to­r­i­al, social and gen­der inequalities.

Permalink

CfP for a pan­el on “Data, Care and Learn­ing in Datafied Worlds”
4S con­fer­ence in Seat­tle and online
3–7 Sep­tem­ber 2025

The extend­ed dead­line for abstract sub­mis­sions is 2 Feb­ru­ary 2025. Please see below for more infor­ma­tion and get in touch with any ques­tions. Abstracts can be sub­mit­ted here.

Short Abstract:

How do data, care, and learn­ing shape each oth­er? Bring­ing togeth­er empir­i­cal work and the­o­ret­i­cal con­sid­er­a­tions across dis­ci­plines and con­texts, this pan­el aims to think broad­ly about the prac­tices that make up the dynam­ic data-care-learn­ing nexus and the impor­tant ques­tions they raise for STS. 

Long Abstract:

In an era of dig­i­tal trans­for­ma­tion, how do data, care and learn­ing prac­tices mutu­al­ly define each other? 

As social­ly-sit­u­at­ed and the­o­ry-laden phe­nom­e­na, data prac­tices are sub­ject to oper­a­tions of scal­ing and manip­u­la­tion, under­pinned by sys­tems of log­ic and val­ue, and co-pro­duced with cul­tur­al, polit­i­cal, and socioe­co­nom­ic real­i­ties. Data are a prin­ci­pal medi­um through which we come to learn, care, and know about our worlds. 

Fem­i­nist STS has estab­lished the crit­i­cal impor­tance of care for sus­tain­ing our worlds, direct­ing atten­tion toward who cares, about what, and how. Con­tin­u­ing to crit­i­cal­ly the­o­rize and empir­i­cal­ly inves­ti­gate care opens up ques­tions of main­te­nance, vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty and inter­de­pen­dence. Trac­ing data prac­tices with care in mind is like­ly to extend some of these insights and con­test others. 

Learn­ing is the­o­rised dif­fer­ent­ly across fields from STS and Inno­va­tion Stud­ies to Psy­chol­o­gy and Edu­ca­tion. Fun­da­men­tal ques­tions about the nature of learn­ing under­pin assump­tions about knowl­edge, exper­tise, and ped­a­gogy. What we care to learn about and how we learn to care have impli­ca­tions for our under­stand­ing of data prac­tices since those prac­tices both shape what can be learned and must them­selves be learned. 

Organ­ised by the DARE team, this pan­el seeks to build on and con­tribute to these lit­er­a­tures by bring­ing togeth­er work across data tech­nolo­gies, con­texts of use, intel­lec­tu­al fields, and com­mu­ni­ties of prac­tice to exam­ine the data-care-learn­ing nexus. 

Sub­mis­sions might offer insights into, for example: 

– What data, care, and learn­ing come to mean through their mutu­al entanglement 

– Where process­es of learn­ing and car­ing are locat­ed in data practices 

– Dis­tin­guish­ing between car­ing, learn­ing, and know­ing in rela­tion to data practices 

– How data are cared for, and how data enable or con­strain care 

– What and how we learn through data practices 

– How the nexus of data, care and learn­ing are the­o­rised across dif­fer­ent sites, and with dif­fer­ent publics 

Permalink

“Neu­romed­ical Con­fig­u­ra­tions: Think­ing Through Pos­si­bil­i­ties of Care, Neglect, and Solidarity” 

4S Seat­tle conference
Sep­tem­ber 3–7, 2025
Seat­tle, Wash­ing­ton, USA

Sub­mis­sion dead­line is *31 Jan­u­ary 2025*.
Abstracts can be sub­mit­ted using this link: https://www.4sonline.org/call_for_submissions_seattle.php (Pan­el num­ber 24).

Neu­romed­ical Con­fig­u­ra­tions: Think­ing Through Pos­si­bil­i­ties of Care, Neglect, and Solidarity

Dis­cus­sant:

Angela Mar­ques Fil­ipe, Durham University

Con­venors:

Sebas­t­ian Rojas – Navar­ro, Andres Bel­lo Uni­ver­si­ty, sebastian.rojas.n@unab.cl

Talia Fried, Ben Guri­on Uni­ver­si­ty, frita@post.bgu.ac.il

Short Abstract:

This pan­el explores the ethico-polit­i­cal stakes, expe­ri­ences and pos­si­bil­i­ties of neu­romed­ical sub­jec­tiv­i­ty. We wel­come papers that explore prag­mat­ic chal­lenges and eman­ci­pa­to­ry poten­tials of neu­romed­ical per­son­hood, while the­o­riz­ing with and beyond ‘care.’

Long Abstract:

Neu­romed­ical knowl­edge and tech­nolo­gies are increas­ing­ly reshap­ing our under­stand­ing of human expe­ri­ence, fuel­ing col­lec­tive demands, trans­form­ing notions of per­son­hood, and dri­ving mate­r­i­al, semi­otic, and infra­struc­tur­al changes across soci­eties. While advance­ments in bio­med­ical and psy­cho­log­i­cal sci­ences have opened path­ways for indi­vid­ual and col­lec­tive action, heal­ing, and sup­port, these gains are uneven­ly dis­trib­uted. Stig­ma, insti­tu­tion­al­ized indif­fer­ence, and dis­par­i­ties in health resources per­sist glob­al­ly, threat­en­ing to over­shad­ow poten­tial ben­e­fits. In this com­plex sce­nario, how does engag­ing with neu­romed­ical advance­ments allow for the cre­ation of diverse real­i­ties of care? How do forms of aban­don­ment or sol­i­dar­i­ty shape the social spaces where health, ill­ness, suf­fer­ing, and dis­abil­i­ty are neu­romed­ical­ly configured?

This pan­el exam­ines the ethico-polit­i­cal dimen­sions of neu­romed­ical sub­jec­tiv­i­ty by extend­ing the­o­ries of care (Puig de la Bel­la­casa 2010). Build­ing on stud­ies of the rela­tion­al, eth­i­cal, and polit­i­cal aspects of care, we invite researchers to explore frame­works that chal­lenge and com­ple­ment this notion, inte­grat­ing STS per­spec­tives on the (un)caring dimen­sions of neu­romed­ical knowl­edge and prac­tices with oth­er crit­i­cal lenses—such as “rights,” “sol­i­dar­i­ty,” “aban­don­ment,” and “neglect” — and draw­ing insights from fields like med­ical soci­ol­o­gy, dis­abil­i­ty stud­ies, polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy, urban stud­ies, posthu­man­ism, crit­i­cal neu­ro­science and others.

Pre­sen­ta­tions may address ques­tions such as: How do care and neglect affect patient out­comes, iden­ti­ty for­ma­tion, and expe­ri­ences of social belong­ing with­in neu­romed­ical con­texts? How do neu­romed­ical approach­es shape prac­tices and modes ofself-know­ing, iden­ti­ty, and rela­tion­al­i­ty across dif­fer­ent social set­tings? How are the infra­struc­tur­al, mate­r­i­al, and semi­otic aspects of our soci­eties shifting—or not—to accom­mo­date diverse neu­romed­ical identities-in-the-making? 

Please feel free to direct any ques­tions to us at Talia Fried, frita@post.bgu.ac.il

Permalink

CfP for Pan­el: “Enact­ing Hope and Desire in Men­tal Health­care: Dis­cur­sive Prac­tices and Ther­a­peu­tic Implications”
Fifth SIAC Nation­al Con­fer­ence “HOPE / DESPAIR / DESIRE” organ­ised by the Ital­ian Soci­ety of Cul­tur­al Anthro­pol­o­gy (SIAC) in the stun­ning city of Mat­era, 25–27 Sep­tem­ber 2025.

Pan­el 14 / SIAC 2025 • SIAC Soci­età ital­iana di antropolo­gia culturale

Pan­el Convenors:

Giu­lia Sci­ol­li, Ital­ian Nation­al Research Coun­cil (CNR)

Rober­ta Mar­ti­na Zagarel­la , Ital­ian Nation­al Research Coun­cil (CNR)

Abstract:

The role of hope and desire for life as “prac­ticed” in ther­a­peu­tic set­tings, as fac­tors shap­ing treat­ment even in sit­u­a­tions that seem to only allow for despair, has been wide­ly explored for con­di­tions like can­cer and chron­ic dis­abil­i­ties (e.g. Mat­ting­ly 1998, 2010). This anthro­po­log­i­cal lit­er­a­ture has shown that hope and desire are con­tin­u­ous­ly con­struct­ed and fos­tered through the dis­cours­es and prac­tices of pro­fes­sion­al and fam­i­ly car­ers. Less atten­tion has been giv­en to men­tal health set­tings, where despair is often per­ceived more as part of the con­di­tion being treat­ed and, grad­u­al­ly, of the very per­son who suf­fers, than as a con­se­quence of an ‘exter­nal’ dis­ease. What Mat­ting­ly (2010: 5) calls “a para­dox­i­cal bor­der prac­tice” (hope for a life beyond or notwith­stand­ing ill­ness) is there­fore even more para­dox­i­cal in men­tal health­care, espe­cial­ly for con­di­tions deemed chron­ic. And yet hope has been found to char­ac­terise recov­ery nar­ra­tives, ther­a­peu­tic rela­tion­ships and treat­ment engage­ment (Long­hofer and Flo­er­sch 2010; Mur­phy et al. 2024; Van Don­gen 1998). This pan­el wel­comes sub­mis­sions that, based on ethno­graph­ic research con­duct­ed among patients, health­care pro­fes­sion­als and/or fam­i­ly car­ers in spe­cif­ic strands of men­tal health­care, show how the dis­cur­sive con­struc­tions and enact­ments of hope and desire for life func­tion as ther­a­peu­tic tools or as points of ten­sion in care, illu­mi­nat­ing their trans­for­ma­tive poten­tial but also their lim­i­ta­tions and eth­i­cal complexities.

Key­words: hope, desire, men­tal health­care, dis­course, practice

We wel­come con­tri­bu­tions in Ital­ian and/or English 🙂

To sub­mit a con­tri­bu­tion, please send an email to: giulia.sciolli@cnr.it and robertamartina.zagarella@cnr.it by June 2, 2025 attach­ing a Word doc­u­ment containing:

Name of author(s)
Affiliation
Pan­el num­ber and title
Paper title
Abstract (1500 char­ac­ters max)

The pan­el will host a max­i­mum of eight papers organ­ised in two ses­sions, which will last 1 hour and 45 min­utes each to allow enough time for ques­tions and discussion.

Authors will be noti­fied of acceptance/rejection/possible relo­ca­tion of sub­mit­ted pro­pos­als by June 16, and the full pro­gramme of the con­fer­ence will be avail­able July 15.

N.B. SIAC believes in shar­ing knowl­edge and in main­tain­ing an inclu­sive sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty. SIAC Con­fer­ences are open and free for both speak­ers and the pub­lic. No reg­is­tra­tion or mem­ber­ship fee is required to attend.

More info on the gen­er­al con­fer­ence theme can be found here (see sec­ond half of the page for Eng­lish descrip­tion): SPERARE / DISPERARE / DESIDERARE • SIAC Soci­età ital­iana di antropolo­gia culturale

For fur­ther logis­ti­cal infor­ma­tion on the con­fer­ence you can email: convegno.siac.2025@gmail.com

We look for­ward to receiv­ing your abstracts!

Giu­lia Sci­ol­li and Rober­ta Mar­ti­na Zagarella

Permalink

CfP for a pan­el on “Shift­ing states and their his­to­ries in insti­tu­tion­al care”
Anthrostate con­fer­ence “Shift­ing States”
22–24 Octo­ber, 2025
Ams­ter­dam, Netherlands 

✨No reg­is­tra­tion fee, in-per­son only. (EASA net­work on Anthro­polo­gies of the State conference)

If the pan­el abstract below res­onates with your research and you would like to join a bunch of friend­ly peo­ple, please send your abstract to Kris­tine Krause k.krause@uva.nl

The final pan­el includ­ing abstracts need to be sub­mit­ted 11 April, so we would like have your abstract the lat­est 9th April.

Junior and PhD researchers par­tic­u­lar­ly welcome.

Look­ing for­ward to hear­ing from you!

Shift­ing states and their his­to­ries in insti­tu­tion­al care

The anthro­pol­o­gy of the state has long argued that states do not exist as coher­ent units out there but are artic­u­lat­ed in prac­tices, spaces and effects. One of the key spaces in which states have effects on their cit­i­zens are care insti­tu­tions. They respond to cru­cial needs of humans; for instance as places where sick­ness­es are treat­ed and frail bod­ies are tak­en care of. They can also curate major tran­si­tions such as birth and death. Care insti­tu­tions such as hos­pi­tals or nurs­ing homes are places defined by par­tic­u­lar and per­sis­tent forms of inter­ac­tion. These forms – where and how things are done, when and by whom – have often coag­u­lat­ed over time. They are backed up by legit­i­ma­tions which are not easy to ques­tion, because they are part of oth­er non-tan­gi­ble soci­etal insti­tu­tions, such as gen­dered divi­sion of labour, kin­ship and fam­i­ly ide­olo­gies which are spe­cif­ic to his­tor­i­cal­ly grown care and health regimes. These regimes as part of state gov­er­nance can bear traces of pasts such as colo­nial rule, polit­i­cal regimes shifts or spe­cif­ic biopo­lit­i­cal projects of care and con­trol. Insti­tu­tion­al care can also be pro­vid­ed by non-state actors on behalf of the state includ­ing non-prof­it, reli­gious or char­i­ty organ­i­sa­tions but also com­mer­cial or even cor­po­ra­tized actors. The rea­sons why these actors per­form or have tak­en over these tasks, have again their own his­to­ries often relat­ed to shifts in ways of gov­er­nance of wel­fare state regimes.

This pan­el brings togeth­er papers that explore how shift­ing states and their his­to­ries come back resur­face, or take unex­pect­ed forms with­in the spaces and prac­tices of insti­tu­tion­al care. The papers exam­ine how his­tor­i­cal lega­cies shape and haunt care­giv­ing inter­ac­tions, insti­tu­tion­al rou­tines, and the nar­ra­tives and posi­tion­al­i­ties of those involved in these care set­tings. In ask­ing how these pasts are artic­u­lat­ed, linger on or are rep­re­sent­ed in care insti­tu­tions this pan­el under­stands his­to­ry not as some­thing wait­ing to be dis­cov­ered in the back­ground, but as active­ly brought up, mobi­lized and pre­sent­ed in the field or artic­u­lat­ed by the ethno­g­ra­ph­er. The past then becomes “his­to­ry” through prac­tices of actors in the field or through the ana­lyt­i­cal work of the ethno­g­ra­ph­er who iden­ti­fies his­to­ry as an absent pres­ence in the stud­ied sit­u­a­tion or prac­tice. The paper in this pan­el inter­ro­gate the con­sti­tu­tive moments where his­to­ry appears, or is brought up in insti­tu­tion­al care set­tings, ask­ing, which posi­tion­ings, gen­er­a­tional mem­o­ries and nar­ra­tives become artic­u­lat­ed therein.

Orga­nized by the Relo­Care Team & friends from the Uni­ver­si­ty of Amsterdam
(Mar­iusz Sapieha, Matouš Jelínek, Veroni­ka Priel­er, Sha­hana Sid­diqui , Yuan Yan and Kris­tine Krause)

Permalink

CfP for pan­el ‚The Bur­den of Respon­si­bil­i­ty? Ethics, Pow­er and Prac­tice in Care Settings’
World Anthro­po­log­i­cal Union (WAU) 2025 Congress
Novem­ber in Antigua, Guatemala

The Con­gress allows both online and face-to-face par­tic­i­pa­tion and we would love to receive your proposals

Dead­line for sub­mis­sion is May 3rd, 2025. More infor­ma­tion about sub­mis­sion here: Here you can find infor­ma­tion about sub­mis­sion: https://www.waucongress2025.org/call-for-papers/

The Bur­den of Respon­si­bil­i­ty? Ethics, Pow­er, and Prac­tice in Care Settings

Abstract
Med­ical anthro­pol­o­gists have long inter­ro­gat­ed the mean­ings and prac­tices of care, from inti­mate forms of care­giv­ing to insti­tu­tion­al sys­tems that admin­is­ter and with­hold care (Klein­man 1997; Mol 2008). Like­wise, respon­si­bil­i­ty with­in health set­tings has been exam­ined in terms of blame, account­abil­i­ty, and moral oblig­a­tion (Farmer 2004; Fassin 2012; Demi­an, Fuman­ti, Lyn­teris 2023). How­ev­er, we think that the inter­sec­tion of the­o­ries of care and of respon­si­bil­i­ty could ben­e­fit from fur­ther explo­ration. We begin by ask­ing: What do we mean when we speak of respon­si­bil­i­ty in con­texts of care? We encour­age con­trib­u­tors to crit­i­cal­ly reflect on the speci­fici­ties that the term ‚respon­si­bil­i­ty’ assumes in care set­tings com­pared to oth­er con­texts, as well as on the ambi­gu­i­ties and dif­fi­cul­ties involved in defin­ing what respon­si­bil­i­ty con­sists of in such set­tings. How are prac­tices of care entan­gled with respon­si­bil­i­ties, both assumed and imposed? How do indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions nego­ti­ate the bur­den of care, and who is deemed respon­si­ble when care falls short or results in harm? What hap­pens when respon­si­bil­i­ty is frag­ment­ed or resist­ed, and how are these process­es shaped by pow­er rela­tions, gen­dered expec­ta­tions, and neolib­er­al policies?
This pan­el seeks con­tri­bu­tions that inves­ti­gate the inter­sec­tions of care and respon­si­bil­i­ty in health con­texts glob­al­ly. We invite paper pro­pos­als focus­ing on the intri­cate and often con­test­ed rela­tion­ship between care and respon­si­bil­i­ty with­in (but not lim­it­ed to) health and heal­ing prac­tices. In an era marked by increas­ing­ly com­plex health sys­tems, struc­tur­al inequal­i­ties, and glob­al crises, the ethics and pol­i­tics of care have tak­en on renewed sig­nif­i­cance. At the same time, notions of respon­si­bil­i­ty are being rede­fined, dis­trib­uted, and resist­ed across mul­ti­ple actors, includ­ing patients, fam­i­lies, health­care pro­fes­sion­als, com­mu­ni­ties, and states
We encour­age sub­mis­sions that crit­i­cal­ly exam­ine the ways in which care is both an eth­i­cal prac­tice and a site of pow­er, and how respon­si­bil­i­ty is ascribed, inter­nal­ized, or con­test­ed in dif­fer­ent med­ical and socio-polit­i­cal landscapes.

We wel­come papers engag­ing with, but not lim­it­ed to, the fol­low­ing themes:

- Moral economies of care and the dis­tri­b­u­tion of respon­si­bil­i­ty (Mol 2008; Han 2012);
‑Care work and the bur­dens of respon­si­bil­i­ty with­in fam­i­lies and com­mu­ni­ties (Tick­tin 2011; The­len 2015);
‑Inter­sec­tions between care, respon­si­bil­i­ty and gen­dered expec­ta­tions (Glenn 2012);
‑Insti­tu­tion­al care prac­tices and sys­temic fail­ures in assum­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty (Gar­cia 2010; Liv­ingston 2012);
‑The impact of neolib­er­al reforms and poli­cies on shap­ing respon­si­bil­i­ties (Muehle­bach 2012);
– Health poli­cies and the del­e­ga­tion of respon­si­bil­i­ty to patients and care­givers (Biehl 2013);
– Indige­nous, fem­i­nist, and decolo­nial per­spec­tives on care and respon­si­bil­i­ty (Brig­gs and Man­ti­ni-Brig­gs 2003; Puig de la Bel­la­casa 2017);
– The role of the state in care pro­vi­sion and the pol­i­tics of neglect (Das 2015; Red­field 2013);
– Glob­al health inter­ven­tions and transna­tion­al respon­si­bil­i­ties (Nguyen 2010; Adams 2016).

More info at https://www.waucongress2025.org/panel/?id=892

Permalink