Long
distance
runners
in
East
Africa
are
often
portrayed
in
the
international
media
as
‘naturally’
gifted
or
as
running
away
from
poverty.
This
thesis
–
that
traces
the
athletic
lives
of
Ethiopian
long-‐distance
runners
seeking
to
‘change
their
lives’
through
the
sport
–
presents
a
different
account,
demonstrating
how
runners
operate
in
an
economy
of
limited
energy.
Based
on
fifteen
months
of
fieldwork
(September
2015
to
December
2016)
that
followed
Ethiopian
runners
from
rural
training
camps
in
the
Northern
highlands
to
Addis
Ababa
and
further
afield
to
competitions
in
Europe
and
China,
the
thesis
makes
a
major
contribution
to
the
anthropology
of
economic
action
and
to
the
anthropology
of
sport
and
development.
Ethiopian
long-‐distance
runners
are
part
of
an
increasingly
competitive
running
market,
which
offers
both
new
opportunities
to
make
fantastic
amounts
of
money
and
higher
odds
against
doing
so.
The
choice
to
become
a
runner
is
characterised
by
speculation
and
risk
as
well
as
the
active
rejection
of
other
forms
of
precarious
work,
which
runners
perceive
as
failing
to
offer
a
‘chance’
of
changing
your
life
for
the
better.
As
runners
train
together
but
compete
as
individuals,
a
core
tension
arises
between
relational
and
individual
agency.
As
this
thesis
explores,
this
tension
is
played
out
across
the
moral
economy
of
energy
expenditure.
The
thesis
develops
this
argument
by
paying
particular
attention
to
the
bodily
and
affective
dimensions
of
running,
beginning
on
the
level
of
individual
concerns
with
self-‐improvement
and
the
careful
marshalling
and
monitoring
of
energy
on
a
day-‐
to-‐day
basis.
It
goes
on
to
argue
that
morally
appropriate
training
regimes
in
Ethiopia
are
characterised
by
working
together,
and
the
visibility
and
synchronicity
of
running
as
well
as
eating
and
resting.
Finally,
the
thesis
shoes
how
global
entities
–
corporations,
race
organisers,
technical
devices
–
affect
the
economy
of
energy
in
Ethiopia
and
bring
new
ethical
challenges.
As
attempts
to
craft
responsible
and entrepreneurial
subjects
coincide
with
long
standing
Amhara
notions
of
the
individual
and
‘chance,’
different
dispositions
converge
and
diverge