Linguistic Anthropology in 2016: Now What?

Shankar, Shalini

doi:10.1111/aman.12865

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 115 publications

(91 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Anthropologists have long been engaging with racialization and the structural violence of racial disparity, white supremacy, and racism; arguably beginning with Professor W. Montague Cobb (see for example his 1936 paper on the debunking of scientific racism applied to famous Black athletes 6 ), and notably including extensive scholarship by Drs Faye Harrison and Michael Blakey, among several others. Recent contributions from all four subfields approach these issues by actively questioning and demonstrating how and why changes in our theoretical approaches, methods, mentorship, recruitment, and/or retention strategies can lead to an anthropological praxis that is self‐aware by diligently working to decolonize itself of white supremacist ideology 7 (see Alim & Reyes, 2011; Antón et al, 2018; Battle‐Baptiste, 2011; Beliso‐De Jesús & Pierre, 2019; Benn Torres, 2020; Blakey, 2020b; Clancy & Davis, 2019; Franklin et al, 2020; Fuentes, 2020; Harrison, 2010, 2012; Heath‐Stout & Hannigan, 2020; Lans, 2020; Meloche et al, 2020; Muller, 2020; Mullings, 2005; Nelson et al, 2017; Rana, 2019; Reardon & TallBear, 2012; Shankar, 2017; Tallman & Bird, in press; Watkins, 2020; Winburn et al, in press; among others).…”

Section: Justice Justice Thou Shalt Pursuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, we are more forceful in asserting that our discipline does maintain and support racism, and the rationalization of performing ancestry estimations despite the rejection of the biological race concept is an apt example. Whether we use the euphemism of "ancestry" to describe what we are doing or not, as Azoulay (2006, p. 353) Recent contributions from all four subfields approach these issues by actively questioning and demonstrating how and why changes in our theoretical approaches, methods, mentorship, recruitment, and/or retention strategies can lead to an anthropological praxis that is selfaware by diligently working to decolonize itself of white supremacist ideology 7 (see Alim & Reyes, 2011;Antón et al, 2018;Battle-Baptiste, 2011;Beliso-De Jesús & Pierre, 2019;Benn Torres, 2020;Blakey, 2020b;Clancy & Davis, 2019;Franklin et al, 2020;Fuentes, 2020;Harrison, 2010Harrison, , 2012Heath-Stout & Hannigan, 2020;Lans, 2020;Meloche et al, 2020;Muller, 2020;Mullings, 2005;Nelson et al, 2017;Rana, 2019;Reardon & TallBear, 2012;Shankar, 2017;Tallman & Bird, in press;Watkins, 2020;Winburn et al, in press;among others).…”

Section: Conceiving An Anti-racist and Decolonized Forensic Anthropologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uncloaking a Lost Cause: Decolonizing ancestry estimation in the United States

DiGangi

Bethard

2021

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the professionalization of US-based forensic anthropology in the 1970s, ancestry estimation has been included as a standard part of the biological profile, because practitioners have assumed it necessary to achieve identifications in medicolegal contexts. Simultaneously, forensic anthropologists have not fully considered the racist context of the criminal justice system in the United States related to the treatment of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; nor have we considered that ancestry estimation might actually hinder identification efforts because of entrenched racial biases.Despite ongoing criticisms from mainstream biological anthropology that ancestry estimation perpetuates race science, forensic anthropologists have continued the practice. Recent years have seen the prolific development of retooled typological approaches with 21st century statistical prowess to include methods for estimating ancestry from cranial morphoscopic traits, despite no evidence that these traits reflect microevolutionary processes or are suitable genetic proxies for population structure; and such approaches have failed to critically evaluate the societal consequences for perpetuating the biological race concept. Around the country, these methods are enculturated in every aspect of the discipline ranging from university classrooms, to the board-certification examination marking the culmination of training, to standard operating procedures adopted by forensic anthropology laboratories.Here, we use critical race theory to interrogate the approaches utilized to estimate ancestry to include a critique of the continued use of morphoscopic traits, and we assert that the practice of ancestry estimation contributes to white supremacy. Based on the lack of scientific support that these traits reflect evolutionary history, and the inability to disentangle skeletal-based ancestry estimates from supporting the biological validity of race, we urge all forensic anthropologists to abolish the practice of ancestry estimation.

show abstract

Section: Justice Justice Thou Shalt Pursuementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conceiving An Anti-racist and Decolonized Forensic Anthropologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncloaking a Lost Cause: Decolonizing ancestry estimation in the United States

DiGangi

Bethard

2021

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Linguistic anthropologists this year have contributed a series of useful analyses of Trump's ascendancy (e.g., Goldstein and Hall ; Hodges ; Mendoza‐Denton ; Silverstein ; the papers given on a panel titled, “Language in the Era of Donald Trump” [4‐0510] at the American Anthropological Association Meeting), and Shankar's () overview of linguistic anthropology in 2016 poignantly asked, in the context of the 2016 US election results, “Now what?” However, Rosa and Bonilla (, 3) argue that more important questions may be, “What have anthropologists already done? And why have past critical interventions in the discipline failed to gain broader traction?” Further, they ask to what extent anthropology is “co‐constitutive of the very hierarchies that are positioned as somehow outside [of it]” (3).…”

Section: Linguistic Anthropology Could Be Otherwisementioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Anthropology in 2017: It Could Be Otherwise

Hoffmann‐Dilloway

2018

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this review, I discuss recent works that embody Monica Heller's (2017, 12) assertion that anthropology is about "imagining alternative worlds." In the first section, "Presence(s), Contact(s), and their Alternatives," I focus on work that refines our analytical grasp of the semiotic processes underlying past, current, and projected realities, possibilities, and engagements. The second section, "Shifting Political Economies," deals with publications that specifically explore how political economic conditions are otherwise than was the case when linguistic anthropologists began formulating approaches to the political economies of language in the immediate post-Cold War period. In a third section, "Evidence and/of Imagination," I examine how linguistic anthropological works published in the period under review have used the terms "imagine/imagined/imaginary" in polyvalent senses when exploring how alternative worlds are conceived and produced, and consider how this nontechnical term can allow scholars to evade or to open up questions of scale and evidence. The final section, "Linguistic Anthropology Could be Otherwise," takes up work in 2017 that asks how the practice of linguistic anthropology itself could be-and should be-otherwise in terms of our engagements outside the field and the scope of our theoretical and political imaginations. [linguistic anthropology, semiotics, alternatives, imagination, political economies]RESUMEN En esta revisión, discuto los trabajos recientes que corporeizan la aserción de Monica Heller (2017, 12) que la antropología es acerca de "imaginarnos mundos alternativos." En la primera sección, "Presencia(s), contacto(s), y sus alternativas", me enfoco en el trabajo que refina nuestra comprensión analítica de los procesos semióticos subyacentes de las realidades, posibilidades y compromisos pasados, actuales y proyectados. La segunda sección, "Economías políticas cambiantes", se ocupa de las publicaciones que exploran específicamente cómo las condiciones económicas políticas son de otra manera de lo que era el caso cuando antropólogos lingüísticos empezaron formulando aproximaciones a las economías políticas del lenguaje en el período inmediato de post-Guerra Fría. En una tercera sección, "Evidencia y/de imaginación," examino cómo los trabajos antropológicos lingüísticos publicados en el período bajo revisión han usado los términos "imaginar/imaginado/imaginario" en sentidos polivalentes cuando exploran cómo mundos alternativos son concebidos y producidos, y consideran cómo este término no técnico puede permitir a los investigadores evadir o abrirse a cuestiones de escala y evidencia. La sección final, "Antropología lingüística podría ser de otra manera", se ocupa de trabajo en el 2017 que interroga cómo la práctica de antropología lingüística en sí misma podría ser -y debería ser-de otra manera en términos de nuestros compromisos por fuera del campo y elámbito de nuestras imaginaciones teóricas y políticas. [antropología lingüística, semiótica, alternativas, imaginación, economías pol...

show abstract

Making the case for linguicism: revisiting theoretical concepts and terminologies in linguistic discrimination research

Nguyen

Hajek

2022

International Journal of the Sociology of Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an effort to foreground the concept of linguicism, this article provides a critical review of the research literature on linguistic discrimination, focusing on common concepts and terms applied to characterise the issue. Giving particular attention to studies which directly consider discrimination based on language or linguistic factors, we identify three main groups of concepts and terms which are widely used, including (a) race-based concepts, (b) language variation-based concepts and (c) general terms. The construction, meaning and usage of the concept of ‘linguicism’ are discussed separately from these three groups. Although race-based concepts, language variation-based concepts and general terms are extremely useful for particular research purposes, they may not be applicable to describe all or other forms of linguistic discrimination. It is argued that linguicism is a powerful theoretical construct, which can be used as an umbrella concept to capture the full range of linguistic discrimination issues. Suggestions are also presented for future research in relation to social factors associated with linguistic discrimination and research context, which is important to shed light on otherwise potentially unheard voices in linguistic discrimination scholarship.

show abstract

Linguistic Anthropology in 2016: Now What?

Cited by 4 publications

References 115 publications

Uncloaking a Lost Cause: Decolonizing ancestry estimation in the United States

Uncloaking a Lost Cause: Decolonizing ancestry estimation in the United States

Linguistic Anthropology in 2017: It Could Be Otherwise

Making the case for linguicism: revisiting theoretical concepts and terminologies in linguistic discrimination research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About