Charles R. Hale

How do anthropologists and other social scientists conceive of the relationship between field research and the call (whether from others or one’s own commitments) to become involved in the politics of the fieldwork situation?  What consequences follow when we respond affirmatively to such calls?  How does this change the character and the outcomes of our work in relation to conventional research methods?  How do our answers to these questions vary as we consider different understandings of the very term “politics”?   In addressing these and related questions, we will be especially interested to understand how the deep chasm between “applied” and “theoretical” approaches to social science research came about, and to explore possibilities for a terrain beyond that divide.  Throughout we will examine the potential benefits that follow from different forms of political engagement in the research process, as well as the dilemmas and contradictions that arise.  We will pay special attention to claims that “decolonized” research yields theoretical knowledge that otherwise would be difficult to achieve.  What are the theoretical contributions of authors associated with the notions of “coloniality” and “decolonization,” and to what extent do they emerge from a particular kind of research method?  Although the decolonization literature is global, we will emphasize works that are ethnographically grounded in Black and indigenous Latin America.

This seminar will examine two key concepts—“racial formation” and “coloniality of power”—as they are used to situate and analyze the politics of subaltern peoples in Latin America.  First, we will develop a theoretical genealogy for the study of racial hierarchies and racism in Latin America, paying special attention to how certain concepts “travel” and resonate in their new locations while others do not.  Is “racial formation” more aligned with Gramsci and “coloniality of power” with Foucault?  Why has the concept of “coloniality of power” emerged as an epitomizing frame for understanding racial subordination in Latin America, while “racial formation” theory has prospered in the north, but only occasionally crossing the Rio Grande?  The second objective is to trace the reverberations of these theoretical genealogies in our understanding of racial and ethnic identity as underlying principles for the organization and enactment of oppositional politics.  We will develop a framework for understanding identity politics, both generally and in Latin America, with a special emphasis on struggles for autonomy.  Has “autonomy” (in a wide variety of guises) become the principal idiom in the politics of racially subordinated peoples?  If so, what theoretical and political consequences follow?