This text explores the difficulties faced by faculty of color, particularly women of color, in the academy. Building on existing literature on these issues, the authors deploy their experiences in the academy to argue for transformative work to be done in order to make academia—and anthropology in particular—more inclusive.

Anthropologists have paid increasing attention to neoliberalism in our research, yet we have been less willing to apply this lens to our own academic positioning and the ways these roles are shaped by privatization and market models. Lives and livelihoods in the American academy are increasingly determined by neoliberalism, and it is vital that we be both reflexive about and engaged around our positions within this project. This article explores the divides that separate various forms of academic labor (secure versus nonsecure, contract, etc.) as well as the raced and gendered implications of these tracks-in particular, the stark ways in which neoliberal transformations negatively affect women of color in the academy. [neoliberalism, academy, race, gender, contingent labor] RESUMEN Los antropólogos han prestado cada vez mayor atención al neoliberalismo en nuestra investigación, sin embargo, hemos estado menos dispuestos a aplicar este lente a nuestro propio posicionamiento académico, y a las maneras en que estos roles están moldeados por la privatización y los modelos del mercado. Las vidas y formas de subsistencia en la academia americana están cada vez más determinadas por el neoliberalismo, y es vital que seamos tanto reflexivos acerca de como comprometidos alrededor de nuestras posiciones dentro de este proyecto. Este artículo explora las divisiones que separan varias formas de trabajo académico (seguro versus no seguro, contrato, etc.) así como las implicaciones racializadas y de género de estas trayectorias-en particular, las formas severas en que las transformaciones neoliberales afectan negativamente a las mujeres de color en la academia. [neoliberalismo, academia, raza, género, labor contingente]

No abstract

This essay outlines my academic research on economic development in the Caribbean, which traces paradigm shifts in the region with particular attention to both the gendered ideologies underpinning these shifts and their gendered effects. Drawing on the long and important history of Caribbean feminist anthropology (Abraham‐Van der Mark 1983; Anderson 1986; Barrow 1995; Barrow 1998; Bolles 1983; Ellis 2003; Kempadoo 2004; Leo‐Rhynie 1997; Mohammed 2002; Mohammed and Shepherd 1988; Momsen 1993; Yelvington 1995), this article situates my research on development paradigms in the US Virgin Islands in this trajectory. Drawing on my ethnographic work on the Economic Development Commission (EDC) program and the women employed in this sector, this article affords me the opportunity to engage with the legacy of feminist ethnography that has enabled my continued engagement with naming both the centrality of the region to global economic processes and the significance of women's labor to these processes.

This essay explores the impact of Hurricanes Irma and Maria on the American‐owned islands of St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John. It details the ambivalence with which the US engages with the Virgin Islands (given the regular elision of these islands from the category of “United States” in media coverage and by US government officials), as well as the ways in which these storms have revealed and brought to the fore long‐standing tensions in relation to the ways the islands relate both to each other and to the United States. In particular, there have been renewed tensions between St. Thomas and St. Croix around federal relief funding and awareness of conditions on the ground.