In the introduction to this special issue, we discuss recent trends in anthropological research on and in theorizing the state. We show how these have given rise to an analytical gap between state images, on the one hand, and practices, on the other. Based on this analysis, we propose a relational approach that we call 'stategraphy' as a way to tie together state practices and representations. This ethnographically grounded approach focuses on relational modalities, boundary work, and forms of embeddedness of actors as constitutive factors. These avenues of analyses enable a nuanced understanding and comparative investigation of change and continuity as well as of mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion.Keywords: anthropology of the state, embeddedness of state actors, relational theory, state images, state practices, stategraphy, welfare While the state had been a recurrent theme in anthropology (Bouchard 2011), the 1990s saw a new wave of interest in it. The efflorescence of the 'new' ethnography of the state has cast a spotlight on certain issues, while others have received less attention. Significantly, there has been a marked shift toward state images and representations in research and theorizing. In response, Anthony Marcus (2008) launched a fulminant critique against this development, which he described as the emergence of an 'orthodoxy' in (Anglophone) anthropological state theory. According to him, emphasizing the plurality of culturally constructed state representations without much reference to either power relations or larger social scientific discussions amounts to mere empiricism. We agree with Marcus that much of the recent anthropological literature has overemphasized cultural constructions, images, and discursive representations of the state, which, moreover, are often presented in a peculiarly monomorphic manner. The topic of state practices-perhaps more pronounced in European discussions-has not received appropriate attention in the strand of literature

No abstract

No abstract

Legal anthropology and legal sociology have much in common. Traditionally, however, these approaches have tried to maintain disciplinary boundaries toward each other. Latest since the 1990s, these boundaries have become more and more porous and the academic practices of boundary-making do seem to convince practitioners of these fields less and less. The recent emergence of a subfield of the anthropology of the state situated at the interface of legal anthropology, legal sociology, ethnographic studies of bureaucracies and organizational sociology attests to this development. In this introduction, we propose to consciously transgress the traditional boundaries between legal anthropology, legal sociology and the anthropology of the state when it comes to the ethnographic investigation of official law. Based on the contributions to this special issue-consisting of empirical articles and commentaries-we map several avenues for boundary transgressions and the theoretical reconceptualizations these may engender. Among them are: looking at legal institutions of the state as practicing both informal formality and formal informality; moving from socio-spatial metaphors to investigating official lawplaces and-spaces as ethnographic objects; and studying normmaking within official law as a wider field of practice.