Publications

In Praise of Makeshift Finishing

Daniel Tubb

Tubb, Daniel. “In Praise of Makeshift Finishing.” Anthropologica 66, no. 2 (2025): 1–8. DOI / Mirror

This article reflects on the challenges of writing and finishing. Using experience of sorting ethnographic field notes, I explores how the desire for a perfect structure and method hinders progress. It is an argument for imperfection in the writing. An argument for finishing, even imperfectly, as essential to transforming ideas into tangible work. It advocates an iterative, hands-on approach to writing.

University Bureaucracies as the Death of Play: The 1968 Strax Affair and the Arts of Discombobulation

Daniel Tubb

Dressler, H., Pleshet, N. & Tubb, D. (2025). “University Bureaucracies as the Death of Play: The 1968 Strax Affair and the Arts of Discombobulation.” Critical Education, 16(1), 125–154. https://doi.org/10.14288/ce.v16i1.186926. PDF / Mirror

The bureaucratic precepts engendered by modern universities produce a slew of negative effects inimical to educational justice. Drawing on historiographical evidence from the 1968 Strax Affair, a little-known protest held at the University of New Brunswick, we identify the arts of discombobulation as a novel approach to challenge the intellectual constraints imposed by university bureaucracies. By theorizing the arts of discombobulation, we aim to counteract bureaucracy’s most alienating affective residues, equipping scholars with an administrative arsenal capable of transforming the corporate academy into a playful, joyful environment. Inspired by cultural historian Johan Huizinga’s theory of the “play-function,” we introduce five interrelated tactics—burlesque versions of both formal and informal administrative practices—that amplify the contradictions inherent to the corporate academy’s contemporary bureaucratic structure: personalization, befuddlement, signal jamming, mapping, and abeyance. Even during moments of Kafkaesque bureaucratic defeat, discombobulation can generate a sense of heightened play necessary to fuel democratic resistance.

University Bureaucracies as the Death of Play: The 1968 Strax Affair and the Arts of Discombobulation

Daniel Tubb

I’m excited to share my short article, with Noah Pleshet and Harrison Dressler, just published in Critical Education!

Our article, University Bureaucracies as the Death of Play: The 1968 Strax Affair and the Arts of Discombobulation, examines how modern university bureaucracies stifle intellectual freedom and creativity. Through the lens of the 1968 Strax Affair—a little-known student protest at the University of New Brunswick—we explore how administrative structures constrain academic life in ways that are often inimical to educational justice.

But rather than simply critiquing bureaucracy, we propose a playful response: the arts of discombobulation. Inspired by Johan Huizinga’s theory of the “play-function,” we outline five interrelated tactics—personalization, befuddlement, signal jamming, mapping, and abeyance—that scholars can use to disrupt the intellectual and emotional alienation imposed by university administration. By embracing these burlesque tactics, we argue, academics can carve out spaces of joy, resistance, and creative play within the corporate academy.

Even when faced with Kafkaesque bureaucratic absurdities, discombobulation can provide the playful energy necessary for democratic resistance. We hope this piece contributes to ongoing conversations about reclaiming the university as a site of intellectual curiosity and radical possibility.

Read the full article, and let us know what you think on mastodon.

Download it here.

Dismantling the Post-War Liberal World Order

Daniel Tubb

Trump’s second presidency is reshaping global trade and security. With tariffs rising and military aid shifting, the post-war liberal order faces an uncertain future. Read my analysis on the three theories driving this transformation.

Tubb, Daniel. “Dismantling the Post-War Liberal World Order.” NB Media Co-op, March 4, 2025. https://nbmediacoop.org/2025/03/04/dismantling-the-post-war-liberal-world-order/.

Tariffs are in, Ukraine is out. Which leaves a question: What to think about Trump’s foreign and economic policy?

Alain Deneault is right. Trump’s working-class supporters, disappointed by elites in Washington and New York for years, are in for a surprise. As tariffs bite, inflation will grip, recession loom, and Europe and Canada will forge new trade and defence alliances. At least, this is one way to think about the dismantling of the post-war liberal world order.

It is a struggle to make sense of today’s tariffs.

It’s a struggle to make sense of what happened in the Oval Office on February 29, when Donald Trump and J.D. Vance berated Volodymyr Zelensky as a pretext to withdraw militarily aid. More broadly, what can we make of the second Trump presidency and the reaction in Europe? One thing is clear, there is a disagreement on how the world has worked for the last 80 years.

Trump’s doctrine is to dismantle the postwar liberal consensus that tied European (and Canadian) security to the United States. A consensus that allowed post-war institutions of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and later, the World Trade Organization (WTO), to shape global security, trade, and economy.

Understanding the consequences of Trump’s endeavour to dismantle this is a theoretical and empirical question. It’s a theoretical question because there are various ways to think about global political economy. It’s an empirical one because Trump and his presidency are hell bent on putting their theory to the test.

In broad strokes, there are three ways to understand the post-war liberal consensus. The first is a mainstream theory. It argues that after the Second World War, American hegemony, the Washington consensus leading to free trade, globalization, and tight security integration have contributed to economic growth around the world. This rising tide has lifted all boats, and despite the externalities of capitalism and globalization, the World Order is the best we could have done. It has been a net benefit for everyone on the planet, so this theory’s proponents put it. In their view, the post-war consensus is worth defending because liberal democracies are the ones holding the line against autocracy and expansionist power in Russia and China. Without it, an unprecedented era of relative stability will end, making lives harder for everyone, including Americans.

The second is a critique from the left. Left critics argue that the United States imposed the post-war consensus after World War II and then expanded it in the 1980s and 1990s through globalization and free trade as part of an imperial project. It argues American empire has having been terrible for working people. It has hollowed out communities, increased inequality, fueled financial speculation, and crony capitalism to the detriment of everyone, especially working classes and the people in global south. It’s the critique that saw the Battle of Seattle against the WTO in 1999, and in the protests in Quebec against the Free Trade Area of the Americas in 2001. It’s the critique that led to protests in 2002 against the war in Iraq, and it is the critique that fuels ongoing protesters against climate change and ongoing wars. The basic thesis: the U.S. became a hegemonic power, globalization has benefited the U.S. and its allies through the exponential accumulation and growth of their assets across the globe, at the expense of the world. Not least because we have come to see clearly that decades of U.S. capitalism have fueled economic growth, with material consequences for a finite planet.

The third theory, which Trump and J. D. Vance have adopted, is a new critique from the right. (Prior to Trump, most mainstream Democrats and Republicans were united in believing the first theory described above.) The right critique goes something like this: post-war American foreign and economic policy was ‘bad’ for the United States, and especially for working people in the rust belt states, in rural areas, and in areas outside of the cities dominated by liberal elites. Their argument is that the post-war liberal economic and security order has been good for the world but bad for Americans. Globalization, free trade, NATO, and all the rest was financed by the U.S., to its own detriment. The world has played the United States for a sucker, they think. It is working Americans, U.S. corporations, and Washington that have given Europe, Canada, and Latin America an economic and security free ride. After all, when the United States opened its economy to free trade with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Europe, China and the world, it devastated manufacturing in its hinterland. Trump’s proposed solution is a muscular, masculine, hegemonic United States. An imperial power willing to throw its muscle around and get what it wants. One willing to use tariffs and re-engage in a Munro doctrine of outward territorial expansion, be that in Panama, Greenland, and, if Trump is to be believed, Canada.

The mainstream theory is that US-led globalization has been beneficial for the world and the United States. The left sees a system that has not worked for the world and working people, even as it has worked for the U.S. and U.S capital. The right sees a system that has been the terrible for the U.S, especially working-class Americans in rural areas.

What to make of all this? The answer is an empirical question—whose theory is right?

From a mainstream perspective, unwinding the role of the United States as the backstop of a global economic and security order will unravel the whole complex system, with devastating consequences. Like all complex systems, when parts start to break, things can go sideways quickly. It’s unclear what will bring down the house of cards. It might be today’s first salvo of a tariff war, or war, a Bird flu pandemic, an economic crisis, or the environmental crisis, but the mainstream sees a bleak future.

From a left perspective, undoing the post-war consensus will make things worse for American consumers, while creating opportunities for the world to get along without the United States. In this analysis, Trump’s tariffs might do some good by undoing US hegemony. If the skyrocketing price of imports match the skyrocketing price of eggs, perhaps what Karl Polanyi once called a double movement of organized social movements will begin to act as a self-limiting force to Trump’s agenda.

But what if the left and the mainstream are wrong? What if Trump is on to something? What if the right critique has merit? What if American protectionism and American expansionism lead to colonial endeavours that benefit the U.S.? What if things get worse for Canada, Europe, and the World, yet better for Americans, especially its billionaire class? We’re about to find out.

Let’s hope the right is wrong, and the left is right. That is, by imposing tariffs, undoing security relations with Canada and Europe, and turning U.S. policy away from globalization, things might be worse for U.S. voters, working people, consumers, and capital, but better for everyone else. It might create opportunities for fairer trade and security relations. If all that happens, Trump’s strangle hold on U.S. democracy itself might be short-lived, as inflation and recession could focus the minds of voters in the United Sates, even as it might be too late for its hegemonic project.

But what if the right is right? Trump has imposed tariffs, and if they work the way his advisors think they will— being that the tariffs won’t hurt U.S. consumers as other countries will see their currencies devalue to compensate—then people in New Brunswick, Canada, and the rest of the world are in for big trouble. The last thing anyone needs right now is an emboldened and expansionist U.S. in search of territory, resources, and a strengthened Empire.

Write in public, or on publishing before you’re ready

Daniel Tubb

Tubb, Daniel. “Write in Public, or on Publishing Before You’re Ready.” Culture, vol. 15, no. 2: Modes et Formats/Modes and Formats. December 20, 2021. https://cas-sca.ca/en/write-in-public-or-on-publishing-before-youre-ready/.

Prolific British Marxist Eric Hobsbawm was a consummate repackager of his own ideas, according to Historians Emile Chabal and Anne Perez (2021). They write his “student lectures became book chapters; newspaper op-eds became long essays; and key arguments found their way into a myriad of different formats.” His expansive body of work emerged, on the one hand, from a willingness to recycle, but also because of a willingness to test ideas in public by building lectures, op-eds, letters, articles, book chapters, and books from each other. Some ideas passed the test; perhaps many did not.

What can an ethnographer learn from his method of writing in public?

Perfectionism has meant I approach writing precisely in the opposite way. For a long time, I have written field notes, ideas, jottings, reactions, drafts. Almost all sit unevaluated, unrevised, and unpublished on my computer. My publications have come slowly and unsteadily. Right now, three articles destined for peer review niggle at me. Each is close, but not quite. Each needs revision. If the past is a guide, it might take me a year to even submit somewhere.

Perfectionism has meant that for me publishing takes time.

Ideas have always spilled from my digital notebooks for large projects. But most ideas never go anywhere.

While I have had some modest success on long projects—a smattering of articles and book chapters, an ethnographic monograph that I’m immensely proud of, and an edited volume of speculative non-fiction about the future—these have taken years and have come slowly.

Might I be getting two things wrong? First, big projects take skill and craft. Enskilment in the writing is best learned in the doing—trying, making mistakes, getting feedback, testing ideas, revising. Second, big projects are exhausting. To write a book is to run a marathon after a marathon after a marathon. And yet, runners might finish hundreds of shorter runs to train for a marathon. Why not write in the same way?

I have often thought of the act of publishing as the last and final step of a project; something done at the end. But publication need not be one’s final intervention. Publication can be an opening intervention into a conversation.

I tell students to write before they are ready. Perhaps we should we publish before we are ready?

While I’ve often struggled to finish and publish academic work, I have also had what is an energizing practice as a writer of short pieces for wider publics. The publics have changed. As an undergraduate student, I wrote for student newspapers. As a graduate student, I helped found a student newspaper. As professor, I write pieces for professional newsletters, national websites, and local media. I dabble in social media. It is energizing, but it has rarely been an outlet for my academic work.

Why not?

A metaphor I have in mind comes from artisanal gold mining. For my first book, I spent eighteen months in northwest Colombia with Afro-descendent gold miners learning how to mine. The work was hard and physical, but for some it had its charms, a little profit, and camaraderie. Central to the mine work was regularly checking in with a wooden pan. Washing is skilled work, and it was women who let the centrifugal force of water eject stones and gravel. If they found a few flecks, they knew they were on the right track. 

The metaphor is a stretch, and writing is not gold mining. But maybe publishing is a way to finish an idea, to check in, to articulate it, and to see if it is useful. After all, to check their progress, an artisanal miner must shift a lot of mud and gravel to get a little gold.

My courses are most exciting, my lectures most gripping, and my writing most productive when it is all intertwined and I am working ideas out. Maybe publication need not be the ultimate, last, and final act of a project, but a way to see what emerges in conversation with students, with peers, and with other publics. Might publishing be a way to check in on an idea, and to test it. After all, not all publication needs to be in scholarly journals or books, and there are newsletters, blogs, magazines, websites, book reviews, social media, and other places.

Maybe we should take a page from Eric Hobsbawn, and learn to write in public.

The Buzz Phase of Resource Extraction: Liquefied Natural Gas in Kitimat, British Columbia

Daniel Tubb

2021, Sax, Marieka, and Daniel Tubb. “The Buzz Phase of Resource Extraction: Liquefied Natural Gas in Kitimat, British Columbia.” The Extractive Industries and Society (Volume 8, Issue 34): 1–11. (Co-author, 40% contribution). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2021.100938. PDF.

This article names a distinct temporal period in resource development and extraction—the buzz phase. The buzz phase draws attention to the years (sometimes decades) of speculation, exploration, assessment, and preparation for a major project, including everything that leads up to operations, whether or not a project actually becomes operational. The social impacts of the buzz phase are experienced by people living and working in zones of present and potential resource extraction, transportation, and processing. A workshop on liquefied natural gas (LNG) development carried out in Kitimat, British Columbia (Canada), is discussed to illustrate and outline the social impacts of the buzz phase. Six provisional themes are proposed as possible areas for future research: hope and fatigue; material and social changes; distribution of impacts; affective impacts; imagined futures; and what is left unsaid.

Peak Conference? Let’s Hope So

Daniel Tubb

By Daniel Tubb, published in Culture: The Newsletter for the Canadian Anthropology Society.

We really have to stop meeting like this. The annual anthropology meetings will be in Vancouver from November 20 to 24, 2019, and while I am excited, I also know “we have to stop meeting like this.” At least, this is how mathematician Malabika Pramanik put the problem of academic conferences in her article in The Tyee. The article summarized a report by Seth Wynes and Simon D. Donner (Department of Geography, University of British Columbia) about the greenhouse gas emissions caused by academic travel by members of the UBC Vancouver campus.

The report makes for sober reading. The major finding is that greenhouse gas emissions from air travel make up between 63% and 73% of the total annual emissions from all operations of the UBC campus. The biggest culprit, representing over half of the total, is short duration trips of about five nights to travel in-person to attend conferences.

In short, the problem is professors, but also students and postdoctoral researchers, who fly to conferences like the 2019 CASCA/AAA meetings in Vancouver.

In fact, only a small fraction of people is responsible for the majority of emissions. Between 8 and 11% of the UBC population produces 50% of those emissions. On my own campus in Fredericton, I suspect I am one of that small number of people. 

I calculated my greenhouse gas emissions from travel (using an online calculator) and wrote about it in July. In the last 18 months, I took flights from Fredericton to Cuba via Toronto for a conference of anthropologists (emitting 675 kg of CO 2 for the journey); to San Francisco via Toronto for another conference (767 kg); to Washington D.C. via Montreal for a conference of geographers (337 kg); to Toronto for a conference of Latin Americanists (243 kg); and to Bogotá via Toronto for fieldwork (743 kg). If you add it all up, all these flights end up contributing about 2,750 kg in CO2 emissions.

Many of us are in the same position, but must spewing greenhouse gases be an occupational hazard of attending conferences?

Clearly, things have to change.

On the last weekend in September, 500,000 people marched in Montreal calling for tackling climate change and a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on global warming gives us until 2030 to reduce emissions by about 45% from 2010 levels.  

Let’s hope Vancouver 2019 is peak conference: The last time so many people travel so far for so little time.

Of course, there have long been calls for individuals to make changes to their behaviour. A colleague of mine made a decision a decade ago to stop travelling more than once a year for academic purposes. Vancouver will be the last time I fly so far just for a conference, because cutting back on flying is the biggest single thing I can to reduce my greenhouse gas emissions. 

But, individual choices to not attend a conference can only be part of the solution.

The UBC report suggests some ways to reduce flying: using local carbon offsets, requiring economy air travel because it produces far less emissions than business travel, developing behavioural incentives, creating a centralized system of tracking travel emissions, and improving access to teleconferencing and information and communications technology on campus.

Yet, a better video link or not going is not going to cut it, all of the time.

I work in a small city and province, and conferences feel important. Large conferences aren’t just opportunities to present one’s work, but are also a chance to meet new people, to see old friends, to hear about cutting-edge research, to discusses ideas, to continue collaborations, and to pitch new work. All of this is hard to do over video.

Conferences are important, and while my plan is to travel less, to travel closer to home, and to stay on the ground, we need structural changes in how we organize conferences as well.

What might it mean to organize a CASCA conference differently? Could we promote and facilitate online attendance for those prefer to stay at home? What about hosting two small regional conferences in parallel with live-streaming of panels and events? Might only holding conferences in big hub cities with excellent public transport and a critical mass of people reduce emissions significantly? What about alternating annually between the West Coast and Central Canada? Might holding a conference every eighteen months or biannually be one way to cut emissions by a third? Might only holding conferences at the same time and place as a bigger conference result in significant greenhouse gas emission savings—should we only have CASCA at the same time as the AAA or Congress? Hopefully these and more questions will be discussed in the cosponsored roundtable addressing precisely this issue at the upcoming 2019 CASCA/AAA meetings.

While there are a lot of questions and no easy answers, Malabika Pramanik is right. We do have to stop meeting like this. We need to figure out how to do conferences differently, because eleven years is not that long to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 45%, and at least for universities, conferences are one of the biggest emitters.

Cite as: Tubb. Daniel, 2019, “Peak conference? Let’s hope so.” *Culture: The Newsletter for the Canadian Anthropology Society, 13.2.

In Praise of Small Places

Daniel Tubb

Small towns can be a great place to get your head down and get things done.

By Daniel Tubb, published in Culture: The Newsletter for the Canadian Anthropology Society, 13.1.

There is a North American phenomenon of young people from rural areas and small towns and medium-sized cities moving to the Big City. In Canada, the destinations are Toronto or Montreal, Vancouver or Calgary. In the US, they are New York or Chicago, Los Angeles or San Francisco. But are big places so necessary for creative work?

Richard Florida suggested in 2004 that innovation is urban, and that the “creative class” requires cities. Dense populations and cafes and bars and restaurants and theatres and concerts and bookstores are the intoxicating fuel of creative people. Sarah Schulman, in a way, eviscerates this idea with her haunting critique of the gentrification of urban spaces and the mind, which occurred in New York after the AIDS crisis. Still, she celebrates the authentic artistic scene of urban spaces that she experienced moving to gritty and vibrant New York in the 1970s and 1980s.

Academia has its own narrative where urban places promote creativity and productivity. A class system of prestige accrues to the large, cosmopolitan, research-intensive universities. We seek them out as undergraduate students, as graduate students, and as faculty. They are intensely competitive. Getting in as a student is hard—as faculty well-nigh impossible. As with the trope of successful people in the Big City, if a scholar doesn’t go to a Top University, it is seen as they couldn’t, not as they didn’t want to.

Why such reticence to the small places and their small universities? One is what I’ve come to think of as prejudice against rurality—to echo Wendell Berry’s observation about the prejudice against country people. We need to blow up the academic and social prejudices against small towns and flyover states and the backwoods and their universities. This might need an intersectional perspective to consider people in place, but I digress. What I want to extend here is an invitation to the freedom one can find on the periphery.

My ticket out of a village in Eastern Ontario was a small university. Applying for graduate school and then jobs, I felt the prestige of the Big City and Big Centers. After several years, I finally found a job at the University of New Brunswick. I was lucky, and I didn’t even know it. I hadn’t yet realized the benefits of small places.

In March 2019, I was listening to CBC Radio host Tom Powers interview the Irish-Canadian playwright, literary historian, novelist, and screenwriter Emma Donaghue, who lives and works in the mid-sized Canadian city of London, Ontario.

“I understand one of the things you love about being here is how productive you get to be. Is that right?” Tom asked.

“If I were in some big glitzy international megacity of the 21st century, there’d be a lot to distract me,” Emma replied. “But, as it is, I’ve had twenty-one years here, and I’ve written quite a lot because there’s not so much getting in the way.”

“That’s a compliment, right?”

“I think so. I mean, London, do you want to be in a city where writers party, or where writers write award-winning screenplays?”

Do you want to be in a city where Anthropologists party, or a town where Anthropologists can get things done?

Fredericton is no 21st-century international megacity. Things shut down on a Sunday afternoon. I am one of a handful of sociocultural anthropologists in the entire province. It is not a city where anthropologists party, although we did host CASCA a few years before my time, and I’ve been to my fair share of parties. There are even more talks and lectures and events than I manage to attend.

Yet, Fredericton and the University of New Brunswick provide conditions more valuable than the so-called urban innovation engendered by Big Cities and their Universities.

Why?

The non-existent commute. Dropping my son and wife off is a ten-minute drive. It’s also walkable. A hike in the woods is a few minutes away. There is no traffic, except for a few minutes at five o’clock in the afternoon. The city has places to walk, bike, ski, swim, and do many kinds of things.

The money. It may be gauche to say it, but rent is cheap, daycare is in the hundreds, not thousands, of dollars. If the time comes, house prices are affordable—some of the cheapest in the country.

A community. I see friends, and we can do things, planning hours not weeks in advance. Having time to meet friend and find a community and recharge, can paradoxically be much harder in a larger city.

The anonymity and lack of competition. I am a small fish in a small pond, yet there are no big fish to gobble me up. I can put my head down and get to work. The university, like any other, keeps me busy. Classes and service and committees and students and meetings and writing and research and grants and email. I run seminars and I teach too widely. But I know my students well, and they number in the dozens and not hundreds. I feel I can slow down a bit, as much as one can at the beginning of the tenure track.

The extra time is time to write, to think, to teach, to invent, to pursue new ideas, to meet, and to organize workshops and events. I’ve had time to write my dissertation into a book, publish some shorter articles, start another book, and successfully apply for a number of grants. My priority is to balance teaching and writing, and here I’ve had time for that and to think and perhaps reach a new public.

One new public, it seems to me, is defined by the places we live. I’m an ethnographer of mining in Colombia, and now of mining in rural New Brunswick.

I write in the morning for a bit, I go to class, I write in the afternoon for a bit. Or, I go to a coffee shop. Or, I walk across the river.

Sure, the grass is greener. I would like more doctoral and masters students, to teach less widely, more colleagues to talk ethnography with, and more scholars and people who care about Colombia and Latin America.

But would all that intellectual partying let me have so much time to think and write?

Cite as: Tubb. Daniel, 2019, “In Praise of Small Places.” Culture: The Newsletter for the Canadian Anthropology Society, 13.1.

It’s Anthropologies, not Anthropology

Daniel Tubb

By Daniel Tubb, published in Culture: The Newsletter for the Canadian Anthropology Society, 12 Special – Stories from Cuba / Échos de Cuba / Historias de Cuba.

There are many ways of doing anthropology.

A little auto-ethnography. Writing this, I look east over the white crested waves of the Saint John River through the girders of a bridge, once a railway now a footpath, and on towards the hillside campus of the University of New Brunswick Fredericton. Amongst the ubiquitous brick, there is a lone wooden building, also red. Once, rumour has it, the building housed prisoners during the Second World War. Now, it houses the Department of Anthropology and my office. All of this is a far cry from the bustling city of Santiago de Cuba and the annual meetings of the Canadian Anthropology Society in May 2018. Not least because the Saint John River was colder than the Caribbean, but also because there are far fewer anthropologists. And yet, I’m convinced my department is a microcosm for the part of a CASCA meeting I enjoy the most.

Our department is small and three-field: archeologists, biological anthropologists, and sociocultural anthropologists. I am probably one of a handful of faculty in New Brunswick who identifies as a sociocultural anthropologist. In my department, we each do anthropology, but we do it in different ways.

In Cuba, there was a concentration of anthropologists—faculty and students and practitioners—from across Canada, Cuba, and the Americas. Many doing anthropology differently, in their own ways. On the campus of the Universidad del Oriente, I regularly felt myself a humble eavesdropper on conversations new to me. Conversations about what anthropology is in Cuba, about what anthropology is in Latin America, and about what different anthropologists are doing for their research. The conversations were in Spanish and English and French.

I once thought such a large national conference was a place where everyone was participating in the same conversation. Conferences bring people together, after all. In our case, people with a commitment to this thing we call anthropology, and a peculiar way of understanding, thinking, researching, and writing about the world as anthropologists. While I suspect many of us have a shared commitment—fraught and conflicted as it may be—to this thing we call Anthropology, we do not share one vision of what anthropology is. And yet, still, we talk of ourselves in the singular: anthropology. A case can be made that it should be anthropologies.

What is anthropology, anyway? We debate it, we critique it, we deconstruct it, and sometimes we try to redefine it. Sometimes, we police our disciplinary boundaries of interlopers, or we lay claim to central concepts or methodological approaches. “They’re not really doing anthropology properly, all they do is ask questions?” I think to myself. In my department, we tell students that Anthropology is a holistic study of humanity across time and place. Yet, how we teach that, the questions we ask, and the answers and methods we accept as truth are different. I think this plurality is a good thing.

Even the way I self-identify as a sociocultural anthropologist is a plurality. The name has resonance in Canada, influenced both by British social anthropology and American cultural anthropology. In Quebec, where I trained as an undergrad briefly, the influences were the French school. In Colombia, where I do fieldwork, the influences are wider still. Indeed, Colombian anthropology has its own thriving history. All of this, of course, was a brought up by the debates around World Anthropologies. Yet, going to CASCA in Cuba, reminded me that there are many anthropologies, even within the settler state some call Canada. Cuba was humbling and exciting precisely because there were many good ideas to think with and about.

As I contemplate how to teach a theory course next semester, I’m struck at how difficult the task is. It can’t be enough to dwell on Western anthropology from elite US and British schools, too often white men from prestigious places have dominated those conversations over the last hundred years. That anthropology is tied up with colonial histories. That it is complicated and exacerbated by a tradition of writing about marginalized communities in non-Western (and now Western) contexts, is of course true. Conversations about anthropology as a handmaiden of colonialism and a discipline in need of decolonizing are vital conversation to keep having. In Santiago de Cuba, I was struck by the many other vibrant and urgent conversations already going on. This is the plurality that I found exciting.

There were challenges, of course. One is the academic class system, which was entirely on display—a cup of coffee at the conference hotel was almost a month’s wages for a Cuban worker. The lingua franca was, too often, English. None of this is unique to an anthropology conference, Canadian or otherwise, as attendees and organizers of all conferences face these challenges. I congratulate the organizers of CASCA in Santiago de Cuba for shifting the locales of conversation and opening up new spaces for discussion, even as money and language and prestige were elephants in the room.

There is a politics to who gets to define anthropology, of course. A jockeying for position. The attempt to define a discipline, can be a good move. “Anthropology should be this.” “It should be that.” Being in Santiago de Cuba reminded me there are so many conversations already going on in many places, and that such that is exciting. In broad left organizing, there are arguments about a “diversity of tactics.” While I do not condone all tactics employed at political demonstrations, I support the right of people to choose which tactics to adopt. I may not find all conversations in anthropology to be equally compelling, but a cacophony is more critical than attempts to discipline the discipline.

Annual conferences like CASCA serve many purposes, not least bringing people together. For me, from a small province and a small city where I am one of a small community, the conference was a much needed chance to recharge, to remind myself what I am doing and why I am doing it by connecting (and reconnecting) with colleagues, by learning to listen to what other people are doing and saying, and by dipping into many conversations. I met people whose work I appreciate, I thought about how to teach better, how to write better, and how to be a better mentor. While I’ve always been most attracted to evocative ethnographic writing and making ideas accessible by doing my best at being readable, this is just how I approach my discipline. There are other approaches. We need more spaces for more voices and for more conversations, as messy and imperfect and as human as these spaces may be. In support of this, we can embrace anthropologies as they are, a plurality in all of its messy glory.

Cite as: Tubb. Daniel, 2016. “Getting on the Tenure Track.” Culture: The Newsletter for the Canadian Anthropology Society, 10.2. https://cascacultureblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/17/its-anthropologies-not-anthropology/