Strengthening the Leadership of Rites and Ceremonies for Reconciliation and Truth: The Case of Socorro Mosquera, Manager and Human Rights Defender in Colombia

This article proposes a tool to strengthen the leadership of rites and ceremonies for reconciliation and truth, using a multidisciplinary approach and bringing together political topics (reconciliation and truth), anthropological concepts (rites and ceremonies), and management sciences issues (leadership) in a special urban context that requires reconciliation and truth after a long, irregular war with multiple violations of human rights. After formulation of the research problem, we were able to relate reconciliation and truth with leadership, rites, and ceremonies. Once so related, we analyzed the historical evolution of rites and ceremonies, with special emphasis on the organizational context, to finally propose a tool to strengthen the leadership of rites and ceremonies for reconciliation and truth. The utility of this tool was confirmed in the case of Socorro Mosquera, a manager and human rights defender in Medellín, Colombia. The eclectic and integrative approach brings originality to the study, while the methodological application of mixed approaches increases its value. © 2019, © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

O Instituto de Antropologia Social (EUA, Brasil e México): um artefato da resposta antropológica ao "esforço de guerra" The Institute of Social Anthropology (USA, Brazil and Mexico): an anthropological contribuition to the "war effort"

O presente trabalho trata do estabelecimento de escritórios do Instituto de Antropologia Social da Smithsonian Institution (SI) no México e no Brasil. A presença da SI dependia de acordos diplomáticos que requeriam aceitação pelos países hospedeiros. O trabalho focaliza documentos, tais como entrevistas e registros institucionais, analisados segundo a relação entre discursos e práticas envolvidos na resposta antropológica ao esforço de guerra. Tal análise pressupõe um entendimento de conceitos empregados na época como "antropologia aplicada", "estudos de área", "estudos de comunidade" e definições usadas especificamente por antropólogos da SI, como "bem limitado" e "choque cultural". O método comparativo mostra-se relevante para entender o que se passava nos dois países. No México, negociações políticas e outros fatores retardaram a criação do Instituto. No Brasil, o processo envolveu disputas interinstitucionais. O exame dessas interações leva à análise da maneira hierárquica como o Instituto era apresentado.<br>This paper examines the establishment of offices of the Smithsonian Institute of Social Anthropology (ISA) in Mexico and Brazil. The Smithsonian's presence depended on diplomatic agreements that required acceptance from the host countries. The article analyzes written documents such as interviews and institutional records to explore the relationship between the discourses and practices involved in the anthropological contribution to the US war effort. This analysis presumes a basic understanding of concepts used at the time, such as 'applied anthropology,' 'area studies' and 'community studies,' as well as definitions specifically used by the Smithsonian's anthropologists, such as 'limited good' and 'culture shock.' The comparative method is relevant to understanding what happened in the two countries. In Mexico, political negotiations and other factors delayed its implantation. In Brazil the process involved inter-institutional disputes. A closer look at these interactions leads to an analysis of the hierarchic interrelationships involved in the creation of the Institute