L'Association européenne des anthropologues sociaux

EASA. L'Association européenne des anthropologues sociaux. In: Bulletin de l'Association française des anthropologues, n°35, Mars 1989. L'ethnologie sous contrat, sous la direction de Anne Guillou et Danièle Kintz. pp. 79-86

Unconventional ownership strategies. When your home is not a house.

In this communication based on an ethnographic work conducted with private houseboats inhabitants of public fluvial areas in Belgium, we will show that the current economic context doesn't abate people's wish to acquire a place of their own. Even more, unconventional and non-institutional home strategies are created as valid and viable solutions to the housing crisis. First of all, these inhabitants often speak about the autonomy and the freedom they get by being the owner of a houseboat. Ashore, as tenants or dependent on housing benefits and mortgages, would they have had the opportunities that the boat offers (e.g. a garden, a central location of their choice, the liberty to organize their home)? This is even more true considering that banks are never part of the equation. Indeed, as these houseboats are not real estate, mortgages are not an option. For their acquisition, future fluvial inhabitants rather rely on their own resources (savings, inheritance, familial loan…). The sum of money needed is often paid in cash and in one go to the former owner. When it comes to renovation, other alternatives (DIY, support of friends and relatives, etc.) are relied upon and time is often the best ally: the boats are always under work, as the money comes and go. As a consequence, owning a boat implies social and familial configurations that are particularly telling of new ways of relating to others, envisioning one's professional choices and leaving a legacy for one's children

Between protector and predator, the ethical status of the dog among the Dörwöd Mongols

In the Mongolian steppe, the dogs living near the yurts of nomadic herders are never domesticated but tamed. They are shepherd dogs. They are never accepted inside the yurt. They belong to the same species (töröl) as the wolf and share with it, independently from any naturalist classification, some characteristics that make them ambiguous beings. This article aims at analysing how different but intertwined modes of existence are attributed to the dogs and the wolves. The author discusses the ways in which a wolf can be perceived as a domestic dog and the dog as a wolf. The analysis throws some light on the reasons why a dog never enjoys any relationship of hospitality as humans do. It also reveals a singular way of perceiving the human person as fragmentary and composite

Between protector and predator, the ethical status of the dog among the Dörwöd Mongols

In the Mongolian steppe, the dogs living near the yurts of nomadic herders are never domesticated but tamed. They are shepherd dogs. They are never accepted inside the yurt. They belong to the same species (töröl) as the wolf and share with it, independently from any naturalist classification, some characteristics that make them ambiguous beings. This article aims at analysing how different but intertwined modes of existence are attributed to the dogs and the wolves. The author discusses the ways in which a wolf can be perceived as a domestic dog and the dog as a wolf. The analysis throws some light on the reasons why a dog never enjoys any relationship of hospitality as humans do. It also reveals a singular way of perceiving the human person as fragmentary and composite

How to express the rhythm of the walk and the diversity of experiences? Restitution and heritage: with the shepherds in northern Pakistan

n/

The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics:fit for research purpose?

The ESRC's (2010) Framework for Research Ethics extends the remit of its 2005 research ethics framework in three significant ways: the system is to be fully mandatory and it will no longer be possible to make the case that no out of the ordinary ethical issues arise; the Research Ethics Committees (RECs) set up under the ESRC's 2005 document have extended remit, including reviewing all research proposals accepted by the ESRC and other funding bodies; and funding will depend on the REC review, with its purview extending through a project's life. The 2010 document is reviewed in detail and the conclusion is drawn that it is not fit for purpose. Six wider issues raised by the FRE document are discussed: the consultation process by the ESRC was insufficient and the informed consent of the social science community was not obtained; the ethics creep involved will involve unnecessary bureaucratisation; the RECs will operate without expert discipline-specific knowledge using unethical generalist criteria; the overall effects long-term will be deleterious to the research base; the FRE document unacceptably ignores the professional associations and their research ethics guidelines; and the ESRC's system of the expert peer review of funding applications will be undermined