Seminars

Starting in the interwar period (between World Wars I and II) and rapidly accelerating in the 1970s, there were shifts to the global economy that radically increased the influence of the “symbolic industries” – science and technology, education, media, law, consulting, administration, finance, non-profits, NGOs and advocacy organizations, and so forth. People who work in these fields traffic primarily in data, ideas, rhetoric, images instead of physical goods or services. Drawing from Bourdieu, we can refer to these professionals as “symbolic capitalists.” One defining trait of symbolic capitalists is our commitment to social justice. We are the Americans most likely to self-identify as feminists, antiracists or allies to LGBTQ people. Politically, we’re overwhelming aligned with America’s primary ‘left’ party. Many of our professions are explicitly oriented around altruism, speaking truth to power, or serving as impartial adjudicators, knowledge producers, facilitators and advisors in order to advance the common good. Given the ways symbolic capitalists like to understand and describe ourselves and our professions, one might expect that as people like “us” have gained more power over society, longstanding social problems would be on the path to resolution and socioeconomic and cultural inequalities would be greatly diminished. In reality, the opposite has happened. In tandem with the transitions favoring the symbolic industries, we’ve seen increased polarization and social conflict. Public trust in institutions has been consistently plummeting. Many systems and institutions are growing increasingly dysfunctional and ineffective. Inequalities in the U.S. have grown increasingly pronounced as symbolic capitalists have risen in affluence and influence. Symbolic capitalists are, themselves, among the primary beneficiaries of these inequalities – and social justice discourse is increasingly mobilized to justify them. The ‘losers’ in the symbolic economy are portrayed as deserving their lot because they think, feel or say the ‘wrong’ things about race, gender and sexuality. Elites’ bids for more power and status, meanwhile, are increasingly bound up with their egalitarian bona fides. Understanding this state of affairs requires a deep and unflinching look into the history and political economy of symbolic capitalists. Although our professions have, from the outset, defined themselves as altruistic in nature — oriented towards higher principles or the greater good – the truth is, we have never been woke.

The presentation examines the role of evangelical Brazilian football players as global missionaries, based on findings from a multi-sited ethnography conducted across various countries, alongside a screen ethnography of media portrayals. It explores how these athletes leverage their international visibility to spread religious messages, often viewing their careers as a platform for faith-based outreach. A key focus is how they perceive their lives abroad as a form of "sacrifice," navigating professional football careers while maintaining their spiritual mission. It further analyzes how faith shapes their values, guiding their conduct on and off the field, and how football clubs profit from this faith-based identity, capitalizing on the players’ strong ethical commitments and influence within religious communities.

As an anthropologist who grew up in a Fundamentalist household and went to an Evangelical college to major in biblical archaeology before becoming an avowed agnostic, this talk will be a kind of reflection as an insider/outsider. The talk will be divided into three parts, which I pose as questions for the sake of argument. 1. Coming to terms with the terms: can the term “Evangelical” be understood apart from its roots in “Fundamentalist”? 2. Coming to terms with my own religious upbringing: is it possible to leave a religion without it always being an issue to personally deal with? 3. Coming to terms with the current Trump-doting “MAGA Evangelicals”: what role does or should “God” play in politics? I will provide a handout of resources to better understand the history of Evangelicalism in America, including previous ethnographic analysis.

As an anthropologist who grew up in a Fundamentalist household and went to an Evangelical college to major in biblical archaeology before becoming an avowed agnostic, this talk will be a kind of reflection as an insider/outsider. The talk will be divided into three parts, which I pose as questions for the sake of argument. 1. Coming to terms with the terms: can the term “Evangelical” be understood apart from its roots in “Fundamentalist”? 2. Coming to terms with my own religious upbringing: is it possible to leave a religion without it always being an issue to personally deal with? 3. Coming to terms with the current Trump-doting “MAGA Evangelicals”: what role does or should “God” play in politics? I will provide a handout of resources to better understand the history of Evangelicalism in America, including previous ethnographic analysis.

The notion ‘regimes of happiness’ is an attempt to capture and define the elusive nature and role of the ideals of human fulfillment in human societies. They are not mere mores or ethical aspirations. Regimes of happiness are social configurations that enact and articulate ethical ideals, which as complex articulations of ideologies concatenations of iconographic imageries and discourses—help social groups and societies to navigate natural and social uncertainties and catastrophes. Regimes of happiness are practical; they effect praxes, and their efficacies determine their abilities to produce lasting effects: institutions. Either as structured organizations or as ensembles of social roles, institutions are key articulators of authority. Regimes of happiness define what is desirable, acceptable, and permissible. To illustrate these analytical distinctions, the lecture “Regimes of Happiness: Civilizations, Disease and the Search of a Fulfilled Life” will focus on the rise of monasticism at the end of the Latin Roman Empire, the transformation of religious orders in Medieval Europe and the reorganization of social life during the Protestant revolutions.

The creation story of the “model minority” is cited in hundreds, if not thousands, of academic articles. Yet, as far as I can tell, Petersen did not coin the term "Model Minority” in The New York Times Magazine and does not seem to have ever used the term, and he was an active proponent of civil rights for African Americans. How did this mythical story get started and become legendary in Asian American studies as well as popular among Asian American religious groups? I am still on the trail and appreciate any help you can provide.