This essay makes a case for the value of actor-network theory (ANT) to anthropology beyond its most usual deployment in studies of science, technology, and society (STS). Through a review of two recent ANT works against both the longer-term development of the approach and common patterns of anthropological appropriation and critique over the past several years, it argues that `about-ANT' and `across-ANT' understandings that emphasize an applicability to technoscience or situations of hybridity should give way to `among-ANT' readings that highlight its quality as a domain-independent ontology of association. Most centrally, it offers a reading of the constitutive spatialities of ANT itself and of spatiality as an important ANT concern, with the suggestion that a greater appreciation for this dimension of the literature might form the basis of broader and more varied anthropological engagements.

Using the theoretically and empirically multivalent concept of “Korean quality,” this article examines articulations of consumption, popular culture, and labor migration in contemporary Nepal. Drawing on the anticipation surrounding the 2010 administration of the Employment Permit System-Korean Language Test, for which over 40,000 Nepalis were candidates, we embed this moment in longer histories of desire and discipline. The qualification mechanism deployed in this system both shifts and is crosscut by Nepali landscapes of risk, class habitus, and expectation. Going beyond the frames in which such phenomena are usually considered, we suggest, is necessary for mapping oft-hidden entanglements of transnational processes.

No abstract

No abstract

Physical anthropologist Aleš Hrdlička is often remembered as an institutional and political opponent of Franz Boas and as an advocate of racial typology against which the Boasian antiracialist position in American anthropology developed. I argue that Hrdlička nonetheless also has more subtle lessons to offer about the political limits of Boasian antiracism. Examining Hrdlička's engagement with the politics of Europe and East Asia from the 1920s to the 1940s, particularly with the intellectual grounding of Japanese imperialism, I suggest that he was perhaps uniquely cognizant of a “second problem of race in the world”—the racist assimilationism of the Japanese empire—vis‐à‐vis the Boasian grasp of race, rooted in a response to U.S. and Nazi racisms, as a category of invidious difference. Moreover, I contend that the lacuna that Hrdlička helps us identify has continued to haunt the discipline at certain key moments of Boasian critique of other ideological forces.