In this article, I consider anthropology's engagement with human rights today. Through the lens of my experience in a case brought before the International Labor Organization by a community in Chiapas, Mexico, I consider the ethical, practical, and epistemological questions that arise in research defined by rights activism. I argue that the critical engagement brought about by activist research is both necessary and productive. Such research can contribute to transforming the discipline by addressing the politics of knowledge production and working to decolonize our research process. Rather than seeking to avoid or resolve the tensions inherent in anthropological research on human rights, activist research draws them to the fore, making them a productive part of the process. Finally, activist research allows us to merge cultural critique with political action to produce knowledge that is empirically grounded, theoretically valuable, and ethically viable.
Constraint induced movement therapy (CIMT) for hemiplegia involves constraining use of the unaffected limb while providing intensive shaping and practice of movements in the hemiplegic limb. The technique had been shown to be highly effective in improving upper limb function in adults following stroke, but there is only a limited literature on the use of this intervention in children. This paper provides a brief overview of the theory and background of this procedure, and reviews the literature on use of the technique in children. It then provides detailed case reports for two hemiplegic children, ages 19 and 38 months, each of whom underwent a trial of CIMT. Both children made significant gains in upper arm function that were reflected in a variety of domains, including aspects of everyday functional limb use. Gains persisted to variable degrees and some unexpected new gains were noted following cessation of CIMT. Practical challenges for the children, parents, and therapists in implementing this intensive but promising intervention are also discussed.
Since the 2016 presidential election, there has been a resurgence of openly white supremacist discourse and action in the United States. The public debate following the election often suggested that Trump and his followers represented a backlash against the assumed progress of a multicultural and potentially even postracial society. However, the assumption inherent in this perspective, that white supremacy can be voted out or voted back in, is problematic. In this article, based on ten years of research with Indigenous women migrants from Mexico and Central America, I will apply an analytic of settler colonialism in order to explore how white supremacy is structured into our institutions and everyday social relations. In particular, I will consider the intersection of capitalism and the settler state, and how the changing needs of capitalism shape discourses of race differently over time yet remain fundamentally underwritten by white supremacist assumptions. Examining the shift from neoliberal multiculturalism to what I call neoliberal multicriminalism, I argue that neoliberal multiculturalism, with its accompanying discourses of tolerance and rights, may have reached its limits, and that the resurgence of open white supremacy is a response to the changing needs of white settler capitalist power. [white supremacy, patriarchy, settler colonialism, neoliberalism, migration]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.