Search

Citational practices reflect values and valuation in academia. Far from being merely consciously or unconsciously political, they reflect academic "upbringing" in complex ways, and, although one may be unhappy at how they were raised, it still may not be clear how to live better. In this article, I highlight aspects of my upbringing in anthropology, noting how I was instructed in citational practice by senior anthropologists from biological and social anthropology. In exploring my journey from naivete to an understanding of citational politics, I describe two figures, the giant and the mule. These figures illustrate the impacts of the practices I was taught. One comes to us from the history of great white men of Europe, the other from Black feminist anthropological fiction of the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic has exacerbated existing inequalities and inequities. Injustices within the labor market mean that the lives particularly of women of color have been negatively affected by the crisis in multiple ways. Guided by standpoint epistemology, we take an intersectional approach and use autoethnographic methods in which we draw on our personal experiences within the United Kingdom's higher education institutions during the pandemic. We illustrate how institutional decisions, approaches, and policies enacted in the wake of COVID‐19 exacerbate inequalities and inequities. Three themes stand out from our experiences: (1) meritocracy and the problem of cumulative (dis)advantage, (2) the lack of racial awareness in management decisions, and (3) the operations of power and silencing. We show that universities justify decisions by deploying discourses of meritocracy and ignoring context and the ways women of color staff are persistently disadvantaged due to structural racism and sexism. We find that universities are likely to indicate that their response policies treat all staff absolutely equally without candidly assessing the intersectional impacts of the pandemic on minority staff, which consequently prevent the achievement of equity. We also describe the ways in which the pandemic exposes cultures of institutional silence and silencing when women of color speak up. We conclude with glimpses of hope for resisting the downward pressures of the pandemic crisis toward cultivating more equitable futures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Nordic welfare state aims to offer universal healthcare and achieve good health, bar none. We discuss past and present moral blind spots in welfare state bioethics through reproductive justice and queer bioethics, particularly focusing on race and racism, based on ethnographic data from Finland. Globally portrayed as aspirational and mostly uninterrogated, it is crucial to have a thorough bioethical evaluation of a Nordic model informed by Black and queer perspectives. We have come to conceptualize the Finnish welfare state as haunted. We fear that the seemingly non‐racial racial hygiene continues to haunt bioethics of the welfare state as structural racism. A key cause for this concern is the lack of racial awareness in public politics and the reluctance in discussing racism due to the national agenda of color‐blindness. This crucially compounds to our findings that medical professionals prefer to think they operate on "purely medical" reasoning as opposed to nuanced ethical contemplation, the latter associated with "social issues" that allegedly cannot be resolved and are outside medical interest. We discuss how the bioethical aftermath of eugenics remains unresolved. Racist, classist, sexist, ableist, and cis‐ and heteronormative stratification of reproduction requires a nuanced moral compass for Nordic welfare state bioethics, not "strictly medical practice." We suggest queer bioethics as a moral theory for recalibrating this compass, joining forces with other justice movements to tackle racism in healthcare and further to interrogate racism, sexism, ableism and cis‐ and heteronormativity in bioethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critics now articulate their worries about the technologies, social practices and mythologies that comprise Artificial Intelligence (AI) in many domains. In this paper, we investigate the intersection of two domains of criticism: identity and scientific knowledge. On one hand, critics of AI in public policy emphasise its potential to discriminate on the basis of identity. On the other hand, critics of AI in scientific realms worry about how it may reorient or disorient research practices and the progression of scientific inquiry. We link the two sets of concerns—around identity and around knowledge—through a series of case studies. In our case studies, about autism and homosexuality, AI figures as part of scientific attempts to find, and fix, forms of identity. Our case studies are instructive: they show that when AI is deployed in scientific research about identity and personality, it can naturalise and reinforce biases. The identity-based and epistemic concerns about AI are not distinct. When AI is seen as a source of truth and scientific knowledge, it may lend public legitimacy to harmful ideas about identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]