29/04/2026

Special Issue

«Anarchist Anthropologies»

Alizé LACOSTE JEANSON (Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México ; PACEA UMR 5199, CNRS – Université de Bordeaux – Ministère de la Culture), alizelj@iia.unam.mx

Léo MARIANI (MNHN, UMR Paloc, IRD – MNHN – CNRS), leo.mariani@mnhn.fr

This special issue of Condition humaine / Conditions politiques is grounded in a shared observation: for several years now, a body of anthropological research—often described as “anarchist”, though not forming a homogeneous current—has contributed to a common shift in perspective. These works interrogate ways of world-making, knowledge production, and coexistence that do not take the state, domination, or centralized power as necessary or self-evident horizons. Speaking of “anarchist anthropologies” is therefore not an attempt to establish a new school or to stabilize a doctrinal definition of anarchism, but rather to open a pluralistic space for discussion around research practices that concretely experiment with forms of non-domination, autonomy, and coexistence.

The renewed interest in these anthropologies is not merely a matter of circumstance, nor simply a tribute to recently deceased figures such as David Graeber (2021), or James C. Scott (2024). More profoundly, it reflects a shift in contemporary anthropological questions, in a context marked by the intensification of forms of power, the multiplication of ecological crises, and the questioning of dominant models of governance, development, and knowledge production. This shift has already found expression in several recent editorial projects that have helped structure debates between anthropology and anarchism. The issue “Anthropology and Anarchy” of the Journal des Anthropologues (2018) offered an initial disciplinary discussion, often centered on explicitly anarchist or autonomist fieldwork. The dossier of the Revue du MAUSS (2023/2) addressed these questions from a largely theoretical and political philosophy perspective, while recent discussions surrounding the work of Pierre Clastres, particularly in the Cahiers d’anthropologie sociale (2025), have examined the foundations and limits of political anthropology. The proposals of Holly High and Joshua O. Reno (2023) also belong to this landscape, notably through their analysis of the legacy of David Graeber.

This new issue of Condition humaine / Conditions politiques engages explicitly with these works while proposing a complementary shift. Rather than taking anarchism as a political form or intellectual tradition as its central object, it seeks to direct attention toward the practice of our discipline itself: is an anthropology without authoritarian and/or normative a priori possible? How, and with what implications? In other words, the aim is not to produce an exhaustive overview of existing scholarship, but to problematize a still underexplored angle: anarchism as a methodological and epistemic stance in anthropology (the discipline being understood here in its full scope, including biological, cultural, and/or social anthropology, and open notably to history and archaeology). What is at stake is less the interrogation of anarchist theories than the implications of a “methodological anarchism” (Paul Feyerabend, 1988): what anarchism does—or can do—to ways of investigating, knowing, reasoning, writing, and more generally representing in anthropology.

Thus, the issue will be organized around research that does not deny the logics of submission, domination, adherence, or reproduction—nor the overwhelming place they occupy today—but that recognizes the political and historical foundations of this ontological precedence while contesting its epistemic dominance. In a sense, the aim is to rediscover the essence of the “Copernican revolution” proposed by Pierre Clastres (1974): power and domination are not inevitabilities, yet sustaining social (individual and collective) and/or scientific forms that keep them at bay requires serious intellectual and practical effort. In this respect, we openly embrace the ambition of projecting anthropology itself toward a horizon of emancipation. We are convinced that the discipline can—and must—help to imagine better worlds and act toward them, without underestimating the epistemic demands and intellectual rigor such an objective entail. In this sense, it would involve adopting the stance of “radical intellectuals” advocated by David Graeber (2018).

From this perspective, we propose two potentially convergent axes for contributions, while remaining open to any that align with the framework outlined above.

The first axis directly concerns research practices. Anarchist anthropologies engage relational ethics and forms of collaboration that shift the position of the anthropologist. Experiences of co-writing (Kopenawa and Albert, 2010) and participatory action research (Fals Borda and Anisur Rahman, 1991) have already shown how knowledge production can move away from academic verticality and foster reciprocity, trust, and shared responsibility. These approaches are not merely methodological choices: they challenge hierarchies between expert and lay knowledge, between analysts and those analyzed, and raise the delicate yet central question of what it truly means to “take people seriously” (Fujigaki Lares et al. 2014; Mariani, 2024). How can one “take people seriously” from within an epistemology and ontology that, by definition, hierarchize other forms of knowledge and ways of being in the world? How can non-scientific forms of knowledge be made to count in arenas largely structured by and around science—especially in a period marked by the rise of post-realism and a corresponding tightening of positivist or scientist values? Anthropology, it seems, is particularly well equipped to engage with these questions, because its “empirical reason” (Olivier de Sardan, 2026) grants it a unique flexibility, and because it has historically straddled both the so-called hard sciences and the social sciences.

These questions resonate closely with those raised by decolonial epistemologies, research from the Global South, and pluriversal approaches, which invite recognition of the plurality of ontologies and regimes of truth (Smith, 1999; Sousa Santos, 2011; Wall Kimmerer, 2013; de la Cadena, 2015; Escobar, 2018). One might even ask whether these epistemologies constitute, in some sense, “anarchisms of the South”—at the very least, the question deserves consideration. Anarchist anthropologies share with these approaches a refusal of the imposition of a single world governed by a dominant rationality, and an attentiveness to the multiple ways of inhabiting the Earth. They invite us to allow other concepts—forest, river, ancestor, territory, fire—to become full-fledged analytical operators (and sometimes legal ones), and to conceive research as a practice of accompaniment and/or critical dialogue rather than an instrument of capture.

The second axis of this call more directly concerns the “anarchist gaze,” its epistemic implications, and the interpretive proposals it may generate. To observe the world after having provincialized the State and power as we predominantly know them is to assume that things could have been—or could still be—otherwise. It is therefore an invitation to revisit a number of facts, testimonies, and historical analyses on the one hand, and to question the current state of possibilities on the other.

If the State and domination are not inevitabilities, we must ask why—and how—they can appear to be so, and examine their conditions of existence and deployment. In this sense, an anarchist perspective should pay particular attention to “incompatibilities,” points of friction that simultaneously reveal the specific qualities of centralized power and the potentialities or propositions it must deny in order to exist. James C. Scott (2013, 2017) has provided numerous and detailed examples of this kind of critical approach, contrasting homogenizing and simplifying state and capitalist logics with ways of world-making that are fundamentally more heterogeneous, fugitives, and often seek to persist in that heterogeneity. It has also been suggested that these contradictory dynamics should be explored well beyond subjective or social forms, in a materialist lineage attentive to infrastructures, topographies, agronomy, biology, and techniques. There is, in any case, a fundamental incompatibility between hegemonic power and diversity (biological, social, or ontological), as the latter generally increases as the intensity of the former decreases (Mariani, 2024). It is to the many forms of this deep tension that we propose to turn our attention.

By aiming to describe what resists or escapes—or could resist or escape—centralized power, we assume that the history and future of the world are shaped in moments of arbitration, when one direction prevails over another. We also acknowledge that one implication of an anarchist gaze is to constantly confront what is with what could have been. In doing so, it opens reflection on the conditions of possibility for habitable worlds, human and more-than-human alike.

This special issue is thus conceived as a space for reflection mirroring the anthropologies it explores: plural, non-normative, and firmly grounded in precise inquiries. It will welcome anthropological, historiographical, or methodological contributions that examine, from a situated and critical perspective, what an anarchist sensibility can do to anthropology in general and to the various worlds in which it is embedded. By reflecting on the conditions for a more horizontal academic practice, and its implications, it seeks to contribute to the development of an epistemic pluralism (Graeber, 2015) that would not be merely an ontological relativism.

Submission guidelines

Authors are invited to submit, by June 15:

• an abstract of approximately 3,000 characters outlining the fieldwork, methodology, and main argument (Word or LibreOffice document), along with a short bibliography;

• a brief author biography (150 words).

Submissions must include the author’s name, institutional affiliation, and email address, and should be sent to redaction.ch-cp@ehess.fr, leo.mariani@mnhn.fr, and alizelj@iia.unam.mx, with the subject line “CH/CP – Anarchist Anthropologies.” A response will be sent on July 6.

Full articles, written in one of the journal’s languages (French, English, Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese), must be between 25,000 and 40,000 characters (including notes and bibliography). They must be original and unpublished, and comply with the journal’s editorial guidelines, available on its website: https://revues.mshparisnord.fr/chcp/index.php?id=99.

Each article must be accompanied by an abstract of approximately 3,000 characters, in French and in English (as well as in the language of the article, if different).

Submissions must be sent no later than October 15.

The process is therefore organized in two stages. In coordination with the editorial board, the issue editors will select proposals based on the submitted abstracts. Accepted contributions will then be evaluated through a double-blind review process.

Timeline:

• Submission of abstracts: June 15

• Notification of acceptance: July 6

• Submission of full articles: October 15

Bibliography

CAHIER D’ANTHROPOLOGIE SOCIALE, « Pierre Clastres en héritage », Paris, L’Herne, 22, 2025.

CLASTRES Pierre, La Société contre l’État, Paris, Éditions de Minuit, 1974.

ESCOBAR Arturo, Sentir-penser avec la Terre : une écologie au-delà de l’Occident, Paris, Seuil, 2018 (2014).

DE LA CADENA Marisol, Earth Beings: Ecologies of Practice Across Andean Worlds. Durham ; Londres, Duke University Press, 2015.

FALS BORDA Orlando, ANISUR RAHMAN Mohammad, Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly With Participatory Action-Research, New York, Apex Press, 1991.

FEYERBAND Paul, Contre la méthode. Esquisse d'une théorie anarchiste de la connaissance, Paris, Seuil, 1988 (1975).

JOURNAL DES ANTHROPOLOGUES, « Anthropologie et anarchisme », Paris, Association Française des Anthropologues, 152‑153, 1, 2018.

FUJIGAKI Lares Alejandro, MARTINEZ Isabel., SALAZAR GONZÁLEZ Denisse, « Llevar a serio… Contra el infierno metafísico de la antropología: Entrevista con Eduardo Viveiros de Castro », Anales de Antropología, 48, 2, 2014, p. 219-244.

GRAEBER David, Pour une anthropologie anarchiste, Montréal, Lux, 2006 (2004).

GRABER David, « Radical alterity is just another way of saying « reality ». A reply to Eduardo Viveiros de Castro », Hau. Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 5, 2, 2015, p. 1-41.

HIGH Holly, RENO Joshua O. (dir.), As If Already Free: Anthropology and Activism After David Graeber, Londres, Pluto Press, 2023.

KIMMERER Robin Wall, Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants, Minneapolis, Milkweed Editions, 2013.È

KOPENAWA Davi, ALBERT Bruce, La Chute du ciel : Paroles d’un chaman yanomami, Paris, Plon, 2010.

OLIVIER DE SARDAN Jean-Pierre, 2026, « Les études décoloniales face à la raison empirique : l’obsession épistémologique », L’Homme, 3-4, 255-256, 2026, p. 191-238.

MARIANI Léo, Devenir hétéronomes. Sur la pluralité des mondes, Sesto San Giovanni, Mimésis, 2024.

REVUE DU MAUSS, « « Faut plus d’gouvernement ? » : Penser le moment anarchiste contemporain », Paris, Éditions Le Bord de l’eau, 62, 2, 2023.

SCOTT James Campbell, Zomia ou l’art de ne pas être gouverné. Une histoire anarchiste des hautes terres d’Asie du Sud-est, Paris, Point, 2013 (2009).

SCOTT James Campbell, Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States, New Haven, Yale University Press, 2017.

SMITH Linda Tuhiwai, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, Londres, New York, Zed Books, 1999.

*

28/08/2023

— Extended deadline: October 16, 2023 —

Special issue (2026)

No(w) Future! The Ethnographic Inquiry, David Graeber, and Us

Questionning the practice of political anthropology

The review Condition humaine / Conditions politiques is launching a call for contributions in the context of a special issue on David Graeber’s political anthropology. Starting from David Graeber’s work on this subject, we would like to question the manyfold ontologies of “power”, inside and outside the discipline. We begin with the problem of “power” in its emic conceptualizations, before shifting our focus towards a reflexive and critical perspective. How do our inquiries contribute to the reinforcement or revision of our own apprehensions of what “power” really “is”? We seek to understand how the latter oscillates between simplicity and complexity by relating them to the prominent place taken by the anthropology of capitalism in recent years. This stream of research was enriched by forms of questioning stemming from the study of political alternatives. David Graeber’s contributions in this respect were important within the discipline. How have new modes of problematization of “the economy” and/or “politics” affected the ways anthropologists conceive of “capitalism”? What are the contributions and limits of these modes of problematization? How does anthropology understand the development of such “alterpolitics”, without giving in to radical enchantment and/or disenchantment in its investigations? These are the issues we look for in submissions to this Special Issue.

This call primarily questions the prescriptive and epistemological dimension of ethnographic practice when it comes to political anthropology. Ethnographic practice is often intertwined with political processes of subjectivation from which neither the anthropologist nor his or her respondents escape. We can’t understand David Graeber’s interest in the impact of political-financial structural reforms during his fieldwork in the village community of Betafo, for example, without situating it in the context of his own trajectory as an anti-globalization activist and proponent of “direct action” (Graeber, 2009). Thus the notion of “temporary provisional zone” echoes with Hakim Bey’s theories on “temporary autonomy zones”.

It is through the process of induction and the reality of the field that some researchers have rethought the analytical categories of identity construction, such as gender (Rebucini, 2013) or work (Monjaret, 2011; 2020). This is also true for politics, or economics (Heintz, 2021). For example, David Graeber’s alterglobalist trajectory is linked to a renewed interest in the history of capitalism, conceived in a global perspective, to shed new light on our present. A good example lies in his work on the history and anthropology of debt, which leads him to redefine this notion, in the footsteps of Marcel Mauss and by mobilizing contemporary contributions of economic anthropology, as a relationship between putative equals temporarily marked by the creation of forms of hierarchy (Graeber, 2011). From Graeber’s perspective, the central interest of ethnography was therefore to foster reflexive work on our categories and concepts (Graeber and Da Col, 2011).

This type of work is thus, for the investigator, part of a horizon of renewal of the relationship to the political field, as well as of the language used to describe it, in which the researcher can feel confined and perhaps from which he wishes to free himself/herself. This horizon extends from alter-activism (Pleyers, 2016a; 2016b), which includes the ecological posture of those who are concerned about global warming by resisting through alternative modes of production and consumption, to alterpolitics, which deconstructs the classics of political anthropology by starting from the individual subjectivities at work in social movements (Boni and Ciavolella, 2015). These alterpolicies are not immune to skepticism and controversies, regarding their possibilities of realization, or the realities they claim to transform, and whose presumed “otherness” is reified by sometimes contestable (and/or contested) spokespersons.

Undoubtedly, “the economy” and “capitalism” have become today—notably because of the importance taken on by the search for alternative forms of thought—central concepts to be questioned and reworked by anthropologists, confronted with a multiplication of “crises” and “catastrophes”. The attribution of responsibilities and purposes of such events becomes a major political issue (Roitman, 2014). The Anthropocene and/or the Capitalocene thus seem to be catchwords containing all the causes of the past, present and future misfortunes of humans and non-humans, caught in the grip of the “politics of survival” (Abélès, 2006). These transformations question the forms according to which, during our investigations, the relationships of possession and dispossession, of taking and taking away, of power and powerlessness are woven into the fabric of space and time—as much from the point of view of the investigator as from the point of view of those with whom we are conducting the investigation. At what point do these upheavals, which question the nature of the transitions/revolutions actually at work, disempower the investigator? Are “ethnographic alternatives” really necessary?

This call therefore aims to analyze the impact of the renewal of the history and anthropology of capitalism and its alternatives. We seek to create a space for debate around the importance of this renewal of the study of capitalism, which has permeated all social sciences since their foundation (Beaujard, Berger and Norel, 2009). Does anthropology have the sole function of opening and enriching the realm of the possible? If so, how can we envisage the study of these emergences in situ, if not as a work of enchantment and/or radical disenchantment? Is “There is (no) alternative”, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the final word in/of anthropology? How does the coupling of crisis/(no)alternative come to transform the ontologies of “power” and its flip side, powerlessness, from the point of view of the individuals and collectives we investigate? How are these issues, and their overcoming, confronted by the researchers who participate in this research arena, and how do we approach them from a reflexive perspective?

Proposals for contributions related to these questions are expected in the form of an abstract of about 3,000 characters (Word or LibreOffice document), with a short bibliography, by October 16, 2023.

They should include the author’s name, professional affiliation, and email address, and be addressed to redaction.ch-cp@ehess.fr, aurelia.gualdo@gmail.com, and olivier.coulaux@ehess.fr, with “CH/CP – The Ethnographic Inquiry, David Graeber and Us” in the subject line. They will receive a response in early November 2023.

Full papers (25,000 to 40,000 characters, including notes and bibliography) must be original and unpublished, conform to the standards of the journal as indicated on its website (https://revues.mshparisnord.fr/chcp/index.php?id=335) and accompanied by a long abstract (3,000 to 4,500 characters), in French and English. They must be submitted by March 12, 2024 at the latest.

Scientific coordination: Olivier Coulaux (EHESS, LAP) and Aurélia Gualdo (EHESS, LAP).

Indicative bibliography

ABÉLÈS Marc, Politique de la survie, Paris, Flammarion, 2006.

BEAUJARD Philippe, BERGER Laurent and NOREL Philippe (dir.), Histoire globale, mondialisations et capitalisme, Paris, La Découverte, 2009.

BONI Stefano and CIAVOLELLA Riccardo, “Aspiring to Alterpolitics. Anthropology, Radical Theory, and Social Movements”, Focaal [Online], no. 72, 2015, “Theme Section: Inspiring Alterpolitics”, URL : https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/focaal/2015/72/focaal720101.xml.

DA COL Giovanni and GRAEBER David, “The Return of Ethnographic Theory”, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory [Online], vol. 1, no. 1, 2011, p. vi-xxxv, URL : https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.14318/hau1.1.001.

GRAEBER David, Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams, New York, Palgrave, 2001.

GRAEBER David, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, Chicago, Prickly Paradigm Press, 2004.

GRAEBER David, Possibilities: Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and Desire, Oakland, Edinburgh, AK Press, 2007.

GRAEBER David, Lost People: Magic and the Legacy of Slavery in Madagascar, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2007.

GRAEBER David, Direct Action: An Ethnography, Edinburgh, Oakland, AK Press, 2009.

GRAEBER David, Revolution in Reverse: Essays on Politics, Violence, Art and Imagination, London, New York, Port Watson, Minor Compositions, 2011.

GRAEBER David, Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Brooklyn, Melville House, 2011.

GRAEBER David, “Dead Zones of the Imagination: On Violence, Bureaucracy, and Interpretive Labor. The Malinowski Memorial Lecture, 2006”, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, vol. 2, no. 2, 2012, p. 105-128.

GRAEBER David, “Anthropology and the Rise of the Professional-Managerial Class”, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, vol. 4, no. 3, 2014, p. 73-74.

GRAEBER David, The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy, Brooklyn, Melville House, 2015.

GRAEBER David, La démocratie aux marges, Paris, Flammarion, 2018.

GRAEBER David, Bullshit Jobs, Paris, Les Liens qui libèrent, 2019.

GRAEBER David and SAHLINS Marshall David, On Kings, Chicago, Hau Books, 2017.

HEINTZ Monica, The Anthropology of Morality. A Dynamic and Interactionist Approach, London, New York, Routledge, 2021.

MONJARET Anne, “Du bleu de chauffe au jean : les jeux de l’apparence des ‘ouvriers’ à l’hôpital, entre traditions corporatistes et normes institutionnelles renouvelées”, Sociologie et sociétés, vol. 43, no. 1, 2011, “Pour une sociologie de la mode et du vêtement”, p. 99-124.

MONJARET Anne, La pin-up à l’atelier. Ethnographie d’un rapport de genre, Ivry-sur-Seine, Creaphis, 2020.

PLEYERS Geoffrey, “Engagement et relation à soi chez les jeunes alteractivistes”, Agora Débats/Jeunesses [Online], vol. 1, no. 72, 2016, p. 107-122, URL : https://www.cairn.info/revue-agora-debats-jeunesses-2016-1-page-107.htm.

PLEYERS Geoffrey, “De la subjectivation à l’action. Le cas des jeunes alter-activistes”, in PLEYERS Geoffrey and CAPITAINE Brieg (dir.), Mouvements sociaux : quand le sujet devient acteur, Paris, Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 2016, p. 27-47.

REBUCINI Gianfranco, “Masculinités hégémoniques et ‘sexualités’ entre hommes au Maroc. Entre configurations locales et globalisation des catégories de genre et de sexualité”, Cahiers d’Études africaines [Online], no. 209-210, 2013, p. 387-415, URL : http://journals.openedition.org/etudesafricaines/17367.

ROITMAN Janet, Anti-crisis, Durham, London, Duke University Press, 2014.

*

16/02/2022

Call for Papers – Varia

The journal Condition Humaine / Conditions politiques is issuing a call for papers to be published in its “Varia” (miscellaneous) section. These substantial articles may explore a wide array of issues, topics or themes, primarily in political anthropology, and should be 25,000- to 45,000-character-long.

They are to peer-reviewed.

Articles should be sent to the following address:
redaction.ch-cp [at] ehess.fr, and comply with the author’s guidelines.

Do not hesitate to circulate this call.

*

31/03/2021

A New Journal in Political Anthropology

Call for Papers

Supported by the IIAC, Condition humaine / Conditions politiques was launched in December 2020 by a group of researchers based in France. This new journal proposes to develop and disseminate French and international research devoted to anthropological insights into politics in today’s world.

Condition humaine / Conditions politiques aims to mobilize and implement the methods, approaches and concepts of political anthropology. It is grounded in the ethnographic method, in anthropological and historical knowledge, both in remote and close spaces, and in anthropological comparison. Its disciplinary territories overlap with those of other social sciences and humanities, historical and political sciences.

For more information

Condition humaine / Conditions politiques is a French biannual multilingual journal. The journal hosts articles in French, English, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese.

All the articles must include a long abstract of 3,000 to 4,500 characters, in English and in French.

The Journal comprises five sections. We welcome authors’ contributions to the Journal’s following sections: Reshaping categories, Turbulences, Varia, Current Debates, and Reviews and Interviews. Submissions to the first three sections will be especially welcome.

Sections

• Reshaping categories, reflecting on theoretical practices
  This section analyzes the circulation of theories and categories in between the various disciplines dealing with the political (as an) object of scrutiny. The aim is to apprehend the current renewal of political anthropology through an in-depth conversation between the theory and the field.
  (Papers are to be 25,000 to 40,000 characters.)

• Turbulences
  This section intends to account for the points of disruption, semantic shifts and muddling of categories that arise in media debates nowadays and deserve particular attention from those committed to scientific and civic engagement.
  (Papers are to be around 15,000 characters.)

N.B. : Here are a few examples of topical, controversial issues that may inspire articles to s ‘Turbulences’ and ‘Reshaping categories’ :
— ‘Racism’, ‘State racism’ and ‘Anti-racism’ ;
— ‘Universal’, ‘Creolization’ and ‘Métissage’ ;
— ‘Beyond Intersectionality ?’ ;
— ‘Genesis, uses and misuses of a category : what is islamo-leftism ?’ ;
— ‘Thinking the gap : from anthropological decentering to historical anachronism’, etc.

A set of articles on categories, theories, and topical issues subject of scientific debate and controversy may be proposed for publication in the Current Debates Section (see below).

• Varia
  This section will feature articles focusing primarily on political anthropology , as well as papers on visual arts, musics, litterature, etc.
  (Articles shall range from 25,000 to 45,000 characters.)

• Current Debates
  This section focuses on specific issues, practices or geographical areas. Multidisciplinarity is welcome.
  (Articles shall be 25,000 to 40,000 characters.)

• Reviews and Interviews
  This section welcomes reviews on books (15,000 characters) and Interviews (15,000 to 35,000 characters) with prominent protagonists in the field of political anthropology.

Instructions to authors