Place,people and processes in waste theory: a global South critique

Scholars across the humanities and social sciences have long sought to theorize waste, and more particularly the relationship between humans – their history, society, culture, art and thought – and their discards. My contention, though, is that these theories, since Mary Douglas’s Purity and Danger (1966) and Thompson’s Rubbish Theory (1979), have been predominantly based in and on global North contexts and, concomitantly, have taken as their axiom the distance between our cultures, lives, experiences and our material rejects. By intersecting existing cultural theories of waste with two important emerging schools of thought – environmental justice and new materialism – I argue that the exclusion or side-lining of places, notably in the global South where countless people live on a day-to-day basis with, on, and off waste, leads to certain imbalances, biases and gaps. Most notably, the livingness and agency of material rejects is often overlooked in theories that oppose humans and other-than-human waste. By way of conclusion, I propose the notion of ‘living waste’ – a more literal and material take on Bauman’s well-known concept ‘wasted lives’ – as a new point of departure for a reconceptualization of waste that might escape the prevailing dualisms and account simultaneously for ‘full-belly’ and ‘empty-belly’ contexts, human (wasted) lives and other-than-human waste materials, and understandings of lived experiences of waste.     

Heritage practices,indigenismo, and coloniality: studying-up into racism in contemporary Mexico

ABSTRACT

Based on two years of ethnographic fieldwork traveling with three ‘artesanos’ (mask-makers) from rural Michoacan and ‘studying up’ as they circulated through fairs and folk art competitions across Mexico, this paper describes how indigenous artists in rural Michoacan are routinely incentivized and sometimes cudgeled within majoritarian institutions of art in Mexico to enact self-racializing stereotypes and stigmatized indigenous identities and to produce and showcase the so called traditional works and performances that conform to static and primitivist stereotypes. At play here is the interlinked legacy and persistence of paternalism, indigenismo, nationalism, and primitivism. These logics continue to play out in reconstituted terms beyond or after the legal, political, and official embrace of pluriculturalism and the multiethnic community in Mexico. The embedded ethnographic vignette and the analysis that follows suggests how a strategy of ‘studying-up’ into coloniality furthers the delinking program. In line with the strategy of delinking, the ethnographic and conceptual work in this article proceeds by decentring or provincializing a set of dichotomous or binary oppositions that are commonly expressed and articulated within the Mexican heritage field, which would oppose indigenous tradition and culture against urban and mestizo modernity, civilization, and culture. The analysis diverges from a common or dominant approach to delinking in one crucial way – it does not engage in ‘borderthinking’ by looking towards the margins; it does not counterpose subaltern indigenous knowledge with privileged occidental knowledge. Instead, presenting an analysis that ‘studies up’, the paper applies the tools of decolonial theory and method and critical theory to analyse and interrogate elite Mexican patrimonial institutions and culture, which in fact epitomize coloniality and engender indigenous vulnerability. The article concludes by discussing the value and the potential pitfalls of this approach, in order to further the decolonizing project from within the space of cultural studies.     

Coloniality and Intersectionality in Social Work Education and Practice

The history of social work education is deeply entangled with the structures of White supremacy and coloniality. Through an analysis of coloniality, the system from which social work operates, this article outlines an alternative framework of intersectionality, which decodes the dominant discourse in relation to power, privilege, White supremacy, and gender oppression. The framework of intersectionality moves professional social work pedagogy and practice from the trenches of coloniality toward decoloniality. The concepts of intersectionality and critical consciousness are operationalized to demonstrate how social work education can effect structural and transformational change through de-linking from its white supremacists roots.     

A post-apartheid paradigm? a view from the outside

The South African student movements of 2015 and 2016 have critically recalled the question: how to dismantle the thinking inherited from apartheid? More than twenty years after the fall of the racist regime, this question still haunt South African humanities. While the term “post-apartheid” might have addressed this urgency and even crystallized an intellectual ambition, it’s multiple and sometimes contradictory meanings have made it hard to establish a paradigm. The authors of this special section have sought to interrogate the use and abuse of the concept in the literature of their respective disciplines, keeping in mind that, whatever its polysemy, the term has become a reference point for the humanities worldwide, as untranslatable as it is inescapable.     

Dwelling in epistemic disobedience: A reply to Go

In Thinking Against Empire: Anticolonial Thought as Social Theory, Julian Go continues his vital work on rethinking and redirecting the discipline of sociology. Go’s piece relates to his wider oeuvre of postcolonial sociology – found in works such as his Postcolonial Thought and Social Theory (2016) as well as multiple journal articles on epistemic exclusion (Go 2020), Southern theory (Go 2016), metrocentrism (Go 2014), and the history of sociology (Go 2009). In this response article, my aim is to think alongside some of the central themes outlined in Go’s paper rather than offering a rebuttal of any sorts. In particular, I want to think through how the recent work on ‘decoloniality’ may play more of a central role in Go’s vision of sociology and social theory than he acknowledges. In doing so, I hope to engage in Go’s prodigious scholarship through centering discussions of the geopolitics of knowledge, double translation, and border thinking. Before proceeding to this discussion, I will offer a brief review of my reading of Go’s paper.     

After inclusion. Thinking with Julian Go's ‘Thinking against empire: Anticolonial thought as social theory’

This contribution engages Go's generative invitation to think against empire by thinking through the epistemic and disciplinary implications of such endeavour. I zoom in on the need to explicitly address the purpose and ethos of scholarly inquiry and how that translates into decolonial academic praxis. Thinking with Go's invitation to think against empire, I feel compelled to constructively engage the limitations and impossibilities of decolonising disciplines such as Sociology. I glean from the various attempts at inclusion and diversity in society and argue that adding or including Anticolonial Social Thought/marginalised voices and peoples in the existing corridors of power—such as canons or advisory boards—is at best a minimal rather than a sufficient condition of decolonisation or going against empire. This raises the question of what comes after inclusion. Rather than offer a ‘correct’ or single alternative anticolonial way, the paper explores the pluriversally inspired method(ological) avenues that appear when we commit to thinking about what happens after inclusion when the goal is decolonisation. I expand on my ‘discovery’ and engagement with the figure and political thought of Thomas Sankara and how this led me to abolitionist thought. The paper then offers a patchwork of methodological considerations when engaging the what, how, why?—questions of research. I engage with questions of purpose, mastery, and colonial science and turn to the generative potential of approaches such as grounding, Connected Sociologies, epistemic Blackness, and curating as methods. Thinking with abolition and Shilliam's (2015) distinction between colonial and decolonial science, between knowledge production and knowledge cultivation, the paper invites us to not only think of what we need to do more of or better when taking Anticolonial Social Thought seriously, but also what we might need to let go of.