No abstract

No abstract

Critical anthropological theory needs to be a theory of relationality. Only through a relational theory can we come to a perception of our fundamental commonality and conceptualise difference as being given significance by the unequal relations that we stand in towards each other. A relational theory needs concepts that reflect on the asymmetrical interdependence that shapes the dynamics of power relations, which give rise to institutions of ‘significant difference’. I propose Luc Boltanski’s notion of ‘situation’ as a concept that enables us to grasp the structured contingency that shapes our mutual interdependence. Situation, by making possible the micro-analysis of macro-relations, also provides the conceptual tools to think beyond that which is, towards that which is possible.

This precarity debate intends to raise the following questions by proposing an introduction and three replies that come from tenured and non‐tenured track anthropologists. The aim is to think critically about precarity within academia: What does it mean to be a precarious researcher in today's academia, which is ruled by a predatory system? How can this situation be framed in terms of shared responsibilities? Could solidarity and unionisation get us out of this situation?