Three jihads: Islamic,Christian, and Jewish (Respond to this article at https://www.therai.org.uk/publications/anthropology-today/debate)

In this guest editorial, the author weighs up to what extent Christian and Jewish life practice equivalents to jihad and to what extent this is a feature of our contemporary secular lives.     

Separatism redux: Crimea,Transnistria, and Eurasia's de facto states (Respond to this article at http://www.therai.org.uk/at/debate)

This article compares recent events in Crimea to Transnistria, another de facto, separatist state located in eastern Moldova. The article asks what Crimea and Transnistria, along with Eurasia's other unrecognized states, can tell us about statehood, sovereignty, and a ‘people’ in the 21st century. Though Eurasia's de facto states can be seen as entities that emerged with the backing of the Russian state, their continued existence reflects a wider uncertainty that emerged with the demise of the Soviet Union. More broadly, these de facto states problematize many of the fundamental terms of political existence.     

Strange powers: Conservation,science, and transparency in an indigenous political project (Respond to this article at http://www.therai.org.uk/at/debate)

The Cofán people of Amazonian Ecuador are important players within global movements for indigenous rights and biodiversity conservation. Scholars, non‐governmental organizations, and donor agencies laud their efforts to protect more than 430,000 hectares of forestland from an expanding colonization front, the transnational petroleum industry, and the spillover of violence from the Colombian civil war and drug trade. In this article, I examine how a set of discourses surrounding indigenous politics enable and constrain Cofán projects. In the context of an ethnographic account of Cofán political practice, I differentiate between the ‘expressive’, ‘instrumental’, and ‘obstructive’ nature of ‘conservation’, ‘science’, and ‘transparency’, respectively. More specifically, I develop three arguments: first, that the discourse of conservation serves to express deeply held conceptions of the ties between Cofán culture, Cofán territory, and Cofán politics; second, that the discourse of science functions as an instrument that Cofán activists use to ground a political‐economic exchange with outside powers; and third, that the discourse of transparency stymies Cofán collective action and is neither locally meaningful nor politically useful. By analyzing the social life of these terms and concepts in Cofán activism, I argue for a more nuanced understanding of discursive power, which always exists in tension with the cultural sensibilities and political perspectives that it supposedly transforms.