Contestations of ‘the Social’ – Towards a Movement-based Ethnographic Social (State) Regime Analysis

该研究小组分析了全球北方大流行后和殖民后城市中社会(国家)政权的竞争。它通过引入社会(国家)制度的概念和基于运动的人种学社会(国家)制度分析的方法，解决并连接了六个研究空白：(1)到目前为止，福利国家的转变仅作为德语人类学社区内关于城市动态、移民、劳动力、护理和政策的辩论的剪影背景。因此，‘社会’文化人类学对(比较)福利研究的跨学科领域的潜在干预还没有得到充分的探索。(2)几位移民学者最近提出了将移民和社会政策更紧密地联系在一起的观点。它们中的大多数在概念上和理论上都非常雄辩，但缺乏经验基础。然而，许多实证研究未能察觉跨越移民和非移民鸿沟的权力动态，也未能理解纵横交错地横跨不同治理领域的“社会”的有争议的界限。(3)社会政策和流动性在市场和非市场做法以及社会再生产基础设施之间的交叉关系中所起的作用尚未得到充分的探讨。(4)对劳动预产化的研究要么只关注移徙劳工，要么忽视种族主义在社会劳资关系中的有效动态。(5)去殖民和后殖民的城市研究讨论了死亡政治如何不仅在全球南方的荒地和墓地和暴力的边界地区，而且越来越多地在全球北方的城市中表现出来。然而，关于无家可归者、城市公民身份和城市不平等的实证研究往往与这些辩论无关。(6)美美城市批评学术中基于运动的研究方法尚未与围绕参与人类学的争论进行对话，至少在欧洲背景下是这样。研究小组通过五个基于运动的民族志社会(国家)政权分析来解决这六个研究差距及其复杂的纠葛。研究人员将参加当地基层社区组织的活动，这些组织在日常生活中领导社会斗争，并以多语言和跨身份群体和民族的方式组织起来。该项目的第一部分(分项目1-3)设在柏林、法兰克福和奥尔登堡(德国)。第二部分(子项目4-5)开启了与伦敦(英国)和洛杉矶(美国)的跨国比较视角。一个以运动为基础的认识论观点和兴趣，以理解b/order‘the Social’的过程允许对不平等的社会关系以及在危机频发的、后殖民和后大流行的资本主义中治理贫困、移民和低工资(生殖)劳动的尝试有不同的解读。

The research group analyses contestations of social (state) regimes in post-pandemic and post-colonial cities of the Global North. It addresses – and connects – six research gaps by introducing the concept of social (state) regimes and the methodology of the movement-based ethnographic social (state) regime analysis: (1) So far, transformations of the welfare state appear only as a silhouette background in debates on urban dynamics, migration, labour, care and policy within the German-speaking anthropological community. Hence, the potential interventions of a cultural anthropology of ‘the social’ into the interdisciplinary field of (comparative) welfare research have not yet be sufficiently explored. (2) Several migration scholars have recently made the case for thinking migration and social policies closer together. Most of them are conceptually and theoretically very eloquent but lack an empirical basis. Many empirical studies, however, fail to perceive power dynamics that cut across the migrant/non-migrant divide or understand contested demarcations of ‘the social’ that criss-cross different territories of governance. (3) The role that social policy and mobility play in the intersectional relations between market and non-market practices and infrastructures of social reproduction has not yet been sufficiently explored. (4) Research on the precarisation of labour either focuses solely on migrant labour or disregards the efficacious dynamics of racism in societal labour relations. (5) De- and post-colonial urban research discusses how necropolitics do not only articulate in the wastelands and necropolis of the Global South and in violent border zones but increasingly also in cities of the Global North. However, empirical research on homelessness, urban citizenship and urban inequality is often not in touch with these debates. (6) The approach of movement-based research in US-American critical urban scholarship has not yet been brought into dialogue with debates around engaged anthropology, at least in the European context.The research group addresses these six research gaps – and their complex entanglements – with five movement-based ethnographic social (state) regime analyses. The researchers will take part in the activities of local grass root community organisations which lead social struggles in everyday life, and organise multilingually and across status groups and nationalities. The first part of the project (subprojects 1–3) is based in Berlin, Frankfurt a.M. and Oldenburg (Germany). The second part (subprojects 4–5) opens up a transnational comparative perspective with London (UK) and Los Angeles (USA). A movement-based epistemic vantage point and interest in understanding the processes that b/order ‘the social’ allow for a distinct reading of unequal social relations and attempts of governing poverty, migration and low-wage (reproductive) labour in crises-ridden, post-colonial and post-pandemic capitalism.