No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Does Anthropology Matter to Law?
Abstract
At a time of ‘interdisciplinary’ scholarly debate and ‘transdisciplinary’ pedagogy, some disciplines appear more siloed and tone deaf to each other than ever before. This article will consider why law and anthropology as disciplines offer almost no impact upon each other’s educational or research agendas.
... 3. A very recent articulation of this view appeared in a Journal of Legal Anthropology forum (Kingsley and Telle 2018), while a not-too-much-earlier iteration was published in 2003 by PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review (Riles 2003). The archetype, of course, remains the two Wenner-Gren conferences organized by Laura Nader in 1964-65 and, in particular, the proceedings of the second conference, which were published as Nader [1969Nader [ ] 1997. ...
Among law and society fields, legal anthropology has experienced markedly high highs and low lows. Its parent disciplines, law and anthropology, have fluctuated from intense and productive engagement with one another to mutual disregard for each other’s ways of knowing. Most commentary on the trajectory of this interdisciplinary relationship has bemoaned anthropology’s (ir)relevance to legal scholarship, but this introduction and the symposium essays that follow invert the usual narrative by asking how—and why—formal law might matter to anthropology. The symposium is part of a dual special issue that grows out of a multi-year conversation between legal anthropologists representing varied institutional and intellectual backgrounds. Drawing on that conversation and on the essays it has produced, this introduction argues that anthropologists would do well to abandon their prepositional attitude to formal law and, instead, to build on the strengths of anthropological analysis by “cultivating attentiveness” to things legal.
This article investigates whether it is possible to bring the longue durée, or the re-contextualization of risk distribution and accumulation, into litigation about climate outcomes. We do this by analyzing the structure of disaster litigation to identify if and whether historical harm is included in argumentation and by applying the concept of takings to a hypothetical legal argument of repetitive flooding in Alaska. We conclude that invisibility of historical harm in climate and disaster litigation gives insight into the preference and structure of the law.
Because of academic divisions of labour anthropologists have come late to the study of the changing landscape of welfare and advice provision in Euro-America (and beyond). But it is crucial to understanding contemporary economies. Attention to the increasing informalization, hybridization, plurality and complexity of welfare/care/advice provision in the context of 21st-century austerity Europe challenges the widely-held view of how state bureaucracies operate. The corollaries are the difficulties in accessing what help is available (hence the increasing need for advice) and an increase in grassroots mutual aid and activism to supplement and in some cases even supplant state advice provision.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.