Latin American Association of

Anthropology / Asociación
Latinoamericana de Antropología (ALA)
LAURA R. VALLADARES DE LA CRUZ
UAM-Iztpalapa, Mexico

Origins of the Latin American Association of Anthropology

The Latin American Association of Anthropology (Asociación Latinoamericana de

Antropología [ALA]) was established in April 1990, at the Seventeenth Meeting of the
Brazilian Association of Anthropology (ABA) in Florianópolis, Brazil. However, the
seeds of a new Latin American association had been planted at least a decade earlier.
In 1979 a meeting was held in Cocoyoc, Morelos State, Mexico, with the support
of the Culture Department of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the
Interamerican Indigenous Institute. It brought together a group of anthropologists
and archaeologists from Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador,
Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela to assess the
state of the field, establish links between anthropologists, and analyze the role of
the discipline in the process of development. In the course of the meeting it became
clear that the participants often had little knowledge about the research and working
areas of their counterparts in other countries, despite geographical proximity and a
shared history. The meeting thus made evident the need for regional collaboration
and academic exchange. As a result of the 1979 meeting, it was agreed to create an
association of Latin American and Caribbean anthropologists and archaeologists.
The Mexican anthropologists Guillermo Bonfil Batalla—by then head of the Center
for Higher Research of the National Institute of Anthropology and History (Centro
de Investigaciones Superiores del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia),
currently known as the Center for Research and Advanced Studies in Social Anthro-
pology (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social)—and
Félix Baez, director of the Interamerican Indigenist Institute, were asked to lead the
process.
Subsequent meetings helped to advance the project for the creation of a Latin
American association. During the Latin American Anthropology Seminar (Seminario
Latinoamericano de Antropología), held in Brasília in 1986, a work group focusing
on identities in Latin America was created. This working group later became a
part of the Latin American Social Science Council (Consejo Latinoamericano de
Ciencias Sociales) and played an important role in the debate among Latin American
anthropologists. In 1988 Professor María Manuela Carneiro da Cunha, as president of
the Brazilian Association of Anthropology), organized a gathering of all the presidents
The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Edited by Hilary Callan.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1991
2 L AT I N A M E R I CA N A S S O CI AT I O N OF A NT HR OP OL OGY

of the Latin American anthropology associations during the Brazilian Anthropology

Meeting. This gathering proved to be an opportunity to move forward on the proposals
of what would become the ALA. Finally, also in 1988, in Quito, Ecuador, a second
meeting of the Working Group about Identities in Latin America (Grupo sobre Identi-
dades en América Latina) took place. It was agreed that all those attending would put
forward the proposal of the creation of a Latin American association to their respective
national associations. Thus, in 1989 George Zarur, coordinator of the Working Group
about Identities, brought the proposal to the attention of Antonio Augusto Arantes,
incoming president of the ABA. The constitution began to be drawn up soon after and
in 1990 the Latin American Association of Anthropology was founded.
Prominent anthropologists were present at the founding meeting in Florianópolis,
including Mexico’s Guillermo Bonfil Batalla, José Del Val, Teresa Rojas, Raúl Nieto,
and Lourdes Arizpe (then president of the International Union of Anthropological and
Ethnological Sciences); Argentina’s Roberto Ringuelet, Leopoldo Bartolomé, and Ana
María Gorosito; Colombia’s Myriam Jimeno; and the Brazilians Arantes and Zarur. The
association was conceived as an entity with no political, partisan, or religious purpose,
the aims of which would be to bring together Latin American and Caribbean anthropol-
ogists; to promote the development of anthropology, the exchange of ideas, the debate of
urgent issues; and to defend common interests. A council of representatives was formed,
consisting of president, vice president, treasurer, and five regional vice presidents (Mex-
ico and Central America, Southern Cone, Colombia and Venezuela, Andean Region,
and Brazil). Three different kinds of members were defined: institutions, individuals,
and correspondents, with the latter defined as non-Latin American anthropologists
doing research in the region.
The association has gone through different periods that reflect the complexities of
its growth and development. It has experienced moments of great activity as well as
of relative dormancy. Three different stages of the ALA are summarized here. The first
period covers the ten years from 1990 to 2000 when it was led by Bonfil Batalla and
Arantes, who served as its first president and secretary-general, respectively, from 1990
to 1993. Bonfil did not complete his presidency, as he passed away unexpectedly in 1992.
ALA’s general assembly decided to give him the title of lifetime president to honor his
career in anthropology and his role in promoting the bonds between the Latin Ameri-
can and Latin Americanist academic communities. The second president (1993–96) was
another prominent anthropologist, the Brazilian Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira, while
Teresa Rojas Rabiela, from Mexico, served as the secretary-general. The third presi-
dency went to the Ecuadorean anthropologist Segundo Moreno Yañez (1997–2000),
during whose three-year tenure the association suffered coordination and communi-
cation problems and a decline in professional recognition in the wider field. Conse-
quently, the fourth president had to make major efforts to reactivate the association.
This transitional stage started with the presidency of the Chilean anthropologist Milka
Castro Lucic, whose term extended from 2000 to 2005. The third phase of the ALA,
which ran from 2005 to 2015, was characterized by the organization of the triennial
congress.
The first Ordinary Meeting of the ALA’s Council of Representatives took place
within the Thirteenth Congress of the IUAES, held in Mexico City in June 1993.
 L AT I N A M E R I CA N A S S O CI AT I O N OF A NT HR OP OL OGY 3

During the conference, the ALA sponsored several symposia covering anthropological
interests of the 1990s: “Social Conflict and Violence,” coordinated by Myriam Jimeno
from the National University of Colombia and Antonio A. Arantes from the University
of Campinas, Brazil; “Cultural Policies and Social Transformations in Major Cities,”
coordinated by Nestor García Canclini from the Autonomous Metropolitan University,
Mexico, and by Antonio Arantes from the University of Campinas; “Anthropology
of the National Society,” coordinated by Claudio Lomnitz from New York University
and Roberto DaMata from Notre Dame University and the National Museum of Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil. Since 1993, the ALA has convened four meetings in four countries:
Argentina (2005), Costa Rica (2008), Chile (2012), and Mexico (2015).

The debate over peripheral anthropologies

and metropolitan or hegemonic anthropologies

One of the ALA’s first projects was the creation of a comprehensive directory of teaching
institutions, research centers, colleges and scientific societies, archives, libraries, and
museums in Latin America, with the goal of understanding the overall status of the field.
This task was led by Arantes, and by 1993 the guide was published by the University of
Campinas. This effort to learn about the areas of dissemination, the production, and the
professional practice of the discipline is perhaps one of the most interesting initiatives
launched by the ALA.
With the purpose of achieving permanent connections among the region’s anthro-
pologists, the ALA board proposed the creation of Latin American and Caribbean
anthropology fora, to be held at least every four years. Such fora would take place
during the meetings convened by other scientific associations from those countries
represented in the ALA. This strategy of meeting and debating within the framework of
seminars or congresses organized by other associations was a response to the obstacles
that the association faced in organizing its own fora or congresses. Even after the
ALA was formally registered as an association and had established an organizational
and financial structure that allowed its members to carry out certain activities, the
organization of congresses was not easy. The association lacked the infrastructure—a
location, staff, telephone lines, and so on—that was necessary for organizing large-scale
events. Additionally, in many cases the managers were staff members or managers
of institutions whose working hours made it hard to dedicate enough time to the
association’s duties. Despite these limitations, however, the founding members, and
later their more active partners, managed to undertake a series of activities and
academic meetings that are worth highlighting.
One of these was the creation of an editorial project that would enable communi-
cation between the different countries about their theoretical approaches. The Boletín
plural became the ALA’s newsletter. Its mission was to inform its readers about the
anthropological activities carried out in the different countries, to collect and dissem-
inate the main anthropological publications and papers, and to publicize the activities
of the association. Although it was planned as a quarterly publication, only the first five
issues saw the light of day. The first issue was published in October 1992, the second
4 L AT I N A M E R I CA N A S S O CI AT I O N OF A NT HR OP OL OGY

in January 1993, the third in June 1993, the fourth in April 1995, and the last one in
June 1997. This final issue was intended to pay homage to the life of the prominent
and beloved Brazilian anthropologist Darcy Ribeiro (1922–97), who had just passed
away. The contents of every issue raised awareness of the main concerns of Latin Amer-
ican anthropology at the end of the twentieth century and, above all, of the theoretical
status of Latin American anthropology. Another section was dedicated to disseminat-
ing information about upcoming seminars, congresses, panels, publications, and other
gatherings. The aim of this section was to analyze the problems and future perspec-
tives of anthropology in each nation and to highlight anthropological debates on the
sociopolitical issues of the region’s countries.
The newsletter, although ephemeral, fulfilled its mission of raising awareness about
the state of the field of some of the Latin American anthropologies and about the episte-
mological debates that the ALA’s participants were taking up. It contained articles cov-
ering the anthropologies of countries such as Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala,
Argentina, and Mexico and anthropological writings from these countries. The newslet-
ters have been kept in the ALA’s archive in Mexico City and can be viewed on the ALA’s
web site (www.ala.iia.unam.mx). It is worth remembering that in the early 1990s the
task of maintaining a print-based editorial project and disseminating paper issues to
different countries was a difficult one.
A second important task carried out by the ALA was to open a productive epistemo-
logical debate around Latin American anthropologies. It was an academic project that
asserted the importance of learning about the pathways of the region’s anthropologies,
reflecting on the characteristics of the national anthropologies, and debating the exis-
tence of a regional academic identity. But the ALA was also interested in discussing the
major issues that afflicted our societies.
The substantial debate on “peripheral anthropologies” emerged from the need to
engage in theoretical considerations from the Latin American fringes, in an attempt to
decenter the foundational theoretical models of Anglo-Saxon anthropology that domi-
nated anthropological training and interpretation. From this perspective, Roberto Car-
doso de Oliveira (1992, 4–6) wrote about recovering the universal dimension of anthro-
pology in such a way that it could regain its nature as a global science. At this point,
several symposia had already been organized to assess the state of the art of anthro-
pology and to foster dialogues between European and Latin American anthropolo-
gies. This trend had first appeared in the 1970s, when a critical anthropology paved
the way for a new challenge to Eurocentrism in the discipline. In Mexico this critique
had its first expression in the publication of the book De eso que llaman antropología
mexicana (About What They Call Mexican Anthropology), a work that addressed the
link between the discipline, its practice, and citizenship. Its authors called themselves
“the magnificent five” of Mexican anthropology: Guillermo Bonfil, Margarita Nolasco,
Enrique Valencia, Mercedes Olivera, and Arturo Warman. They dedicated themselves
to debating the need for the critical participation of anthropologists in the social and
cultural processes responsible for social inequalities. They asked on what basis a new
and valid project for the discipline could be built. This line of questioning led to a
discussion about the identity of anthropology in Latin America. Anthropologists were
strongly critical of state anthropology because of its links with repressive indigenous
 L AT I N A M E R I CA N A S S O CI AT I O N OF A NT HR OP OL OGY 5

policies and its neocolonialist perspectives. This criticism, generated in Latin America,
flourished in other latitudes as well. For instance, in 1978 the Egyptian anthropolo-
gist Hussein Fahim organized the seminar “Indigenous Anthropology in Non-Western
Countries” in Burg Wartenstein, Austria; and in 1982 the Swedish magazine Ethnos ded-
icated an issue to discussing the foundation of national anthropologies entitled “The
Shaping of National Anthropologies,” edited by two anthropologists from the Uni-
versity of Stockholm, Tomas Gerholm and Ulf Hannerz. All this shows that concerns
about the nature of indigenous or peripheral anthropologies were much present in the
period.
At the same time, the founding of the ALA was related to several social issues in
the region. For instance, anthropologists were concerned about the poor conditions in
which indigenous people were living, especially with regards to the invasion of their
territories and the environmental damage caused by mining or infrastructure projects
which, under the aegis of the development discourse, were encouraging private and
public investment. For several decades, these kinds of projects had been affecting the
rights of indigenous peoples. In this regard, two seminars were held on the island of
Barbados in 1971 and 1977 around the central theme of “Interethnic Friction in South
America.” A third meeting held in Rio de Janeiro in 1993 continued the theme. The
1970s meetings concluded with two declarations by the participants who, in addition
to analyzing the prevailing situation, reported continuous violations of the fundamen-
tal rights of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and expressed their support for
indigenous mobilization across the continent. They also expressed their commitment to
a science that used its expertise to support the indigenous peoples’ liberation struggles.
In this same context, but from a Marxist position, the Latin American Council for the
Support of Indigenous Struggles (Consejo Latinoamericano de Apoyo a la Luchas Indí-
genas), created in Mexico in 1980, denounced the counterinsurgency policies and the
violence in different ethnoregions of the continent which, they felt, should be addressed
by the academy.
Regarding the domain of their academic production, the anthropologists associated
with ALA considered that one of the ways to enhance and strengthen the still emerging
bonds between the region’s anthropologists was to create research networks organized
around the anthropological production on Latin America. Another of the focal points
of debate was the working conditions of the anthropologists in the different countries
of the region, a topic that remains one of the central threads of contemporary anthro-
pology in the context of the precarious working conditions in every social field that are
the result of post-neoliberal policies. The major concerns of Latin American anthro-
pologies were hotly debated, their emergence and development being closely linked to
national projects. Another particularity of the discipline of the region was its persecu-
tion during the military dictatorships that dominated the Southern Cone in the 1970s
and 1980s.
There were at least three expressions of the debate about peripheral anthropologies.
The first was configured by the team led by George Zarur from Brazil, who coordinated
the working group about identities in Latin America. He organized the seminar “Latin
American Anthropology,” held in Brasília in June, 1987, with the purpose of starting
an intellectual exchange between anthropologists of the region. The idea of staging
6 L AT I N A M E R I CA N A S S O CI AT I O N OF A NT HR OP OL OGY

this seminar emerged during the General Assembly of the Pan-American Institute of
Geography and History, celebrated in Rio de Janeiro in 1984. In the following fifteen
years, a group of Latin American specialists were summoned to several symposia,
roundtables in different congresses organized by the ABA in Brazil and Colombia and
by other countries. As a result of these initiatives, four edited volumes were published
in which anthropologists debated the particularities of discipline and other important
topics such as identity, the nature of the region, ethics and nation in Latin America,
and violence.
Another trend resulting from these debates was the emergence of “Southern anthro-
pologies” (antropologías del Sur), a proposal developed by Esteban Krotz (1993a), who
claimed that Southern anthropologies are not reducible to mere “extensions” or “repli-
cas” of an anthropological original. Rather, they are ways of producing anthropolog-
ical knowledge with particular features. Krotz asserted that Latin American anthro-
pologists, unlike European or North American anthropologists who usually conduct
research outside their country or continent, conduct investigations in their own coun-
try. He found four fundamental differences. One of the features that distinguishes “clas-
sic” anthropology from anthropology practiced in the South is that, in the South, the
scholars and the subjects of study are citizens of the same country. This is not, obviously,
a question of geography, though in many instances the physical proximity between the
place where the empirical information is collected and the places where these materials
are discussed and published proves to be important. Accordingly, it is understandable
that a link has been created between professional, social, and political interests, and
this relationship is very different to one that might emerge in the case of a research vis-
itor studying a social group for a period of time. A second characteristic relates to the
conceptualization of science and of the social sciences. A key aspect that distinguishes
most Southern countries from the countries where anthropology emerged is the social
appreciation of scientific knowledge in general and of anthropological knowledge in
particular. Whereas the economic, political, and military dominance of Northern coun-
tries is based increasingly on the creation and control of knowledge, in the Southern
countries scientific and technological expertise that is considered useful is imported
from the North, sometimes replacing, or even blocking knowledge that is produced
locally (Krotz 1993b, 2015).
A third difference between Northern and Southern anthropology relates to the way in
which otherness is assumed and perceived. In the southern hemisphere anthropology
did not emerge as part of the intellectual and social efforts of a particular civilization to
understand, with the cognitive means available to them, a certain kind of relationship
between cultures and civilizations. Positivism, neopositivism, scientism, and empiri-
cism have all helped to suppress questions about the conditions or the possibility of
“using” or “applying” anthropology in different civilizations, about understanding alter-
native forms of cultural interaction from a different perspective. Despite technological
advances, limitations in the dissemination of their research have also played their part
in relegating Southern anthropologies to the margins. Another difference is linked to
the anthropological treatment of sociocultural otherness both from within and from
outside a given cultural framework. Krotz asserts that it is more pertinent to speak of
Southern anthropologies (antropologías del Sur) because they are at least as multifaceted
 L AT I N A M E R I CA N A S S O CI AT I O N OF A NT HR OP OL OGY 7

as the different “schools” or “trends” in Northern anthropologies, if not more so. How-
ever, like Northern anthropologies, they also share certain features. These are far from
clear but are related to their having been a traditional “object” of Northern anthro-
pology and to the deep division of the world into two opposing spheres: South and
North.
The fourth characteristic of the anthropologies of the South has been their inter-
est in recovering their particular way of analyzing cultural diversity in Latin Ameri-
can countries. With this objective, Esteban Krotz called on different Latin American
anthropologists to write articles that gave an account of the origin, trajectory, thematic
interests, and analytical approaches of the discipline in their respective countries. As a
result, two special issues of the journal Alteridades were published on “Latin American
anthropologies” (Krotz 1993a, 2011).

A decade of ALA conventions (2005–15)

One of the efforts to reactivate the links between Latin American anthropologists took
place in 2003, when the council met during the Fifty-First International Convention
of Americanists in the city of Santiago, Chile, and agreed on strategies to revive the
ALA. One was to convene congresses to support the continuity of the existing working
groups and to propose new ones. Among the new working groups were ones dedicated
to the training of future anthropologists and to making inquiries on behalf of graduates
in the labor market. It was agreed that the ALA’s first congress would take place in
Rosario, Argentina, in 2005. This meeting was expected to revive the association and
to help continue its efforts at assessing and disseminating the state of knowledge of
anthropology in Latin America and the Caribbean. At the same time, it was agreed to
extend for two more years the presidency of the ALA, which by then was in the hands
of the Chilean Milka Castro Lucic.
The ALA’s first congress was very successful in terms of attendance as well as in the
quality of its keynote speeches, panels, and book presentations (there were around 500
presentations altogether). The meeting took place from July 11 to July 15, 2005, at the
Anthropology School of the Faculty of Humanities and Arts of the National University
of Rosario, Argentina. Fifteen years after the ALA’s foundation, the congress provided a
perfect occasion to continue with the discussions that had given birth to the association.
Keynote speakers gave their accounts of the topics that deserved attention from Latin
America, the titles of which are indicative of some of the main debates in those years. For
instance, the keynote speech of Gustavo Lins Ribeiro (Brazil), entitled “Cosmo-politics,
Power and Theory in Anthropology,” reflected upon the relationship between central
and nonhegemonic anthropologies. Xavier Albo (Bolivia) raised the topic of “Ethnicity
and Indigenous Movements in Latin America,” emphasizing the new developments,
especially new political openings for Ecuador and Bolivia with the building of plural
states. The Argentinian anthropologist Eduardo Menendez, who had been resident in
Mexico since the 1980s, presented a paper entitled “Bonds, Networks and Social Rituals
or the Disappearance Melancholy,” and Miguel A. Bartolomé, also an Argentinian resi-
dent in Mexico, presented his reflections on “Encounters with Ethnicity: Anthropology,
8 L AT I N A M E R I CA N A S S O CI AT I O N OF A NT HR OP OL OGY

Politics and Interethnic Relationships.” His theoretical reflections considered the links
between contemporary ethnicity and political processes. Finally, Argentinian anthro-
pologist Hector Vazquez talked about relationships and junctions between “Anthropol-
ogy and Literature.”
Another important event was the roundtable organized by Gustavo Lins Ribeiro
(University of Brasilia) and Susana Narotzky (University of Barcelona) under the
heading: “World Anthropologies: Can We Think Out of the Hegemonic Discourse?”
Discussions pointed in similar directions as those of colleagues who had proposed
the notion of peripheral anthropologies, and they paved the way for new dialogues
with a wider array of world anthropologies. The organizers of this round table were
members of the World Anthropologies Network, which had played an important role
in establishing different dialogues between global anthropologies that would have been
impossible to imagine only a few years earlier. Thanks to this network, there is current
awareness of the characteristics of anthropology in places such as India, Japan, South
Africa, and China. The aim of the panel was to consider the diversity of forms and
processes of knowledge. The panelists decided to consider the possibility of creating
a website that would encompass not only the institutionalized history of national
anthropological knowledge but also nonscientific or eccentric forms of learning about
reality. Such cosmopolitics may pose new questions without descending into a baroque
eclecticism. They started from the assumption that, increasingly, “the problems about
power between different anthropological practices in the world [have become] clearer”
(Narosky 2006, 167).
The congress concluded with a general assembly of the ALA, the appointment of a
new board of directors, and the selection of the next venue for the second congress.
Mexican anthropologist Ana Bella Pérez Castro, from the Anthropologic Research
Institute of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, was appointed as the new
president and Costa Rica was chosen as the venue for the next convention. The congress
proceedings were published by Edgardo Garbulsky under the aegis of the University of
Rosario, Argentina, that same year.
It was of great significance that the ALA’s second congress was held in Central Amer-
ica, at San José in Costa Rica, in July 2008. This location was close to countries where the
field had only recently emerged and where local anthropological work was not widely
disseminated. For instance, the School of Anthropology at the University of Costa Rica
opened its doors in 1964. The ALA congress was an opportunity to establish work-
ing relationships with the anthropologists of this area and to publicize their research.
Only a few Central American colleagues had attended Latin American or international
conventions, because of the lack of institutional resources. The postwar conditions in
countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras were precarious, and these
countries still face high levels of violence, which makes the social sciences a low pri-
ority. Nevertheless, the region’s anthropologists do have a regional organization, the
Central American Anthropology Network, which has held ten congresses since it was
established in 1993. Interestingly, the title of this network’s last meeting was “Central
American and Southern Mexico Anthropology,” a topic that reflects the many affinities
between Central America and southeastern Mexico (e.g., Mayan culture, a shared his-
tory, ecological characteristics).
 L AT I N A M E R I CA N A S S O CI AT I O N OF A NT HR OP OL OGY 9

The ALA’s second congress was titled “Latin American Anthropology: Building Up
a New Future.” It managed to convene roughly 500 presenters from different latitudes
of Latin America. It also attracted some European and North American colleagues who
carry out research in the area. The opening lecture was delivered by the Mexican anthro-
pologist Gilberto López y Rivas, a scholar with a long and renowned career as a Marxist
and a critical anthropologist. In his lecture “Latin American Anthropology and Neolib-
eral Transnationalization” he asserted that practitioners were not immune to the ethical
imperatives that, as citizens and social scientists, commit us to finding solutions to the
secular problems that afflict humanity. On the contrary, neoliberal transnationalization
has been so detrimental to living conditions on the planet that many analysts consider
that human civilization is on the verge of collapse and that humanity faces an existential
crisis (López y Rivas 2008).
Two symposia at the congress were of note. The first was organized by the Central
American Anthropology Network under the heading “State and Anthropology in Cen-
tral America and in Mexico” and discussed the progress of anthropology and archaeol-
ogy in Salvador, Costa Rica, and Chiapas, Mexico. The second symposium, organized by
Milka Castro and Esteban Kroz, was called “Towards a Characterization of Latin Amer-
ican Anthropology,” as part of the activities of the working group on Latin American
anthropologies and epistemologies headed by Esteban Krotz. The anthropological his-
tory of Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Central America was debated
and Latin American or Southern anthropologies were also reflected upon.
The ALA’s second congress ended with a declaration:

I. Our emphatic rejection of the use of our field of knowledge for military or coun-
terinsurgency purposes from the governments with military conflicts, support for our
colleagues, as well as for the associations of those and other countries that have fear-
lessly opposed to this mercenary use of anthropology. II. Our apprehension about the
arrest of the documentary producer Elena Varela in Chile on May the 7th, 2008, and the
confiscation of the documentary material that she has managed to collect, after a long
painstaking work with Mapuche communities and chiefs.

The Mapuche people had long been criminalized for their defense of their land and
political rights, and this continues to the present day. The violence and uncertainties of
the time were expressed in some symposia and in the final declaration of the congress.
At the close of the meeting, it was agreed that Chile would serve as the host country
for the next meeting. The Anthropologists College of Chile, together with the Catholic
University of Temuco, the Austral University of Chile, and the University of Concep-
ción were chosen as organizers. One of the interesting developments to come out of
the Costa Rica congress was a proposal to include both indigenous and nonindigenous
leaders and organizations as co-organizers and speakers in the symposia of the next
congress.
The ALA’s third congress in Chile, under the heading “Anthropologies in Motion:
Ideas from the Contemporary South,” gathered together 1,032 participants who
presented 938 papers in November 2012. Four keynote speakers enriched the meeting:
Tim Ingold, from the University of Aberdeen (United Kingdom), presented “Making:
Anthropology, Archaeology, Art, Architecture”; Alicia Barabas from the National
10 L AT I N A M E R I CA N A S S O CI AT I O N OF A NT HR OP OL OGY

Institute of Anthropology and History (Mexico) presented “The Indigenous Territories

Seen from Symbolic Anthropology”; Carlos Reynoso, from the Faculty of Philosophy
and Literature, University of Buenos Aires (Argentina) read a paper entitled “Net-
works, Complexity and Anthropology: New Foundations, Misunderstandings and
Possibilities”; and, finally, Miguel Alberto Bartolomé, also from the National Institute
of Anthropology and History (Mexico), gave a lecture entitled “The Imaginary Indians:
Problems of the Intercultural Dialogue in the Plural Society.” As in the two previous
congresses, Esteban Krotz coordinated the symposium “Towards a Characterization of
the Latin American Contemporary Anthropologies.” Other topics that were important
in Latin America were also discussed, such as childhood anthropology, transnational
studies, anthropology of performance, audiovisual anthropology, interculturality, edu-
cation and interculturality, and human rights of the indigenous peoples. The congress
finished with a declaration in which all the participants expressed their concern with
the continuing violations of the rights of the indigenous peoples in Latin America.
During the Third Latin American Congress of Anthropology, different problems that
affect the region’s indigenous peoples were discussed, such as territorial confiscation,
governments’ infringement of international treaties (especially Convention 169 of the
International Labour Organization) and several national laws and local regulations, the
imposition of mega development projects and other initiatives that affect indigenous
territories, and the criminalization of indigenous leaders and peoples. The participants
manifested their sympathy with the Mapuche people, who, despite harassment and
police repression, kept fighting to recover their traditional lands. Finally, there was an
appeal to the authorities of Latin America to act urgently to guarantee the rights of
the indigenous people of the region and to ensure the effective application of each and
every one of the national and international regulations and laws. The ALA General
Assembly agreed that the next congress would be held in Mexico City.
The ALA’s fourth congress was held in October 2015 and was organized by the
College of Ethnologists and Social Anthropologists and the Anthropological Research
Institute of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Other Mexican institu-
tions, such as the Center for Research and Advanced Studies in Social Anthropology,
the Metropolitan Autonomous University, the Ibero-American University, the College
of Michoacán, the National School of Anthropology and History, and the National
Institute of Anthropology and History, also helped to organize the events.
The number of participants had increased to 1,500, and there were 134 symposia.
Participants from thirty-four different countries reflected and presented their research
outcomes on topics that intersect with the anthropology of Latin America. Some of
these topics, which brought together junior and senior anthropologists, students, and
social leaders, included South–North migrations, transterritorial identities, violence,
drug dealing and trafficking, neoextractivist forces that move across the region and the
planet, indigenous people’s rights, and justice and the state. The congress’s proceedings
are available on the ALA website (www.ala.iia.unam.mx).
The Latin American Association of Anthropology has been able to fulfill its objectives
for more than a quarter of a century. It has been a productive academic endeavor that
has given us an understanding of how an important community of Southern anthro-
pologists has developed and how it expresses itself.
 L AT I N A M E R I CA N A S S O CI AT I O N OF A NT HR OP OL OGY 11

SEE ALSO: Argentina, Anthropology in; Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo (1935–91); Brazil,
Anthropology in; Brazilian Association of Anthropology (ABA); Cardoso de Oliveira,
Roberto (1928–2006); Chile, Anthropology in; Ethnicity, Multiculturalism, and
Transnationalism; European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA); Hermitte,
Esther (1921–90); Human Rights; Interethnic Friction; Mexico, Anthropology in;
Ribeiro, Darcy (1922–97); Warman, Arturo (1937–2003); World Anthropologies;
World Council of Anthropological Associations (WCAA)

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

ALA (Asociación Latinoamericana de Antropología). 1993. Guía: Antropología en América

Latina: Centros de investigación, instituciones de enseñanza, Colegios y Sociedad Científicas,
Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos [Guide: Anthropology in Latin America: Research Centers,
Educational Institutions, Schools and Scientific Society, Archives, Libraries, Museums]. São
Paolo: Universidad de Campinas.
Cardoso de Oliveira, Roberto. 1992. “Universalidade e singularidade da antropologia [Univer-
sality and Singularity of Anthropology].” Boletín Plural, de la Asociación Latinoamericana de
Antropología, 1.
Gerholm, Tomas, and Ulf Hannerz. 1982. “Introduction: The Shaping of National Anthropolo-
gies.” Ethnos 47 (1): 1–35.
Krotz, Esteban, ed. 1993a. “Antropologías latinoamericanas [Latin American Anthropologies].”
Alteridades 3 (6). Accessed May 26, 2017, http://alteridades.izt.uam.mx/index.php/Alte/issue/
view/45 [in Spanish].
Krotz, Esteban. 1993b. “La producción de la Antropología en el Sur: Características, perspectivas,
interrogantes [The Production of Anthropology in the South: Characteristics, Perspectives,
Questions].” Alteridades 3 (6): 5–11.
Krotz, Esteban, ed. 2011. “Antropologías latinoamericanas II [Latin American Anthropologies
II].” Alteridades 41 (July–December). Accessed May 29, 2016, http://alteridades.izt.uam.mx/
index.php/Alte/issue/view/10 [in Spanish].
Krotz, Esteban. 2015. “Las antropologías segundas en América Latina: Interpelaciones y
recuperaciones [Second Anthropologies in Latin America: Interpellations and Recoveries].”
Cuadernos de Antropologia Social 42. Accessed May 30, 2017, http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/
cas/n42/n42a01.pdf.
Lins Ribeiro, Gustavo. 2001. “Post-imperialismo: Para una discusión después del post-
colonialismo y multiculturalismo [Post-imperialism: For a Discussion after Post-colonialism
and Multiculturalism].” In Estudios Latinoamericanos sobre cultura y transformaciones sociales
en tiempos de globalización [Latin American Studies on Culture and Social Transformations
in a Time of Globalization]. Buenos Aires: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales.
Accessed April 27, 2017, http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/clacso/gt/20100912041021/
10ribeiro.pdf.
Lins Ribeiro, Gustavo, and Arturo Escobar, eds. (2006) 2008. Antropologías del mundo: Trans-
formaciones disciplinarias dentro de sistemas de poder [World Anthropologies: Disciplinary
Transformations within Systems of Power]. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios
Superiores en Antropología Social. Accessed April 27, 2017, http://www.unc.edu/~aescobar/
text/esp/escobar.2008.AnthDelMundo.pdf. Published in 2006 in English as World Anthropolo-
gies: Disciplinary Transformations within Systems of Power. Oxford: Berg.
López y Rivas, Gilberto. 2008. “Antropología latinoamericana y transnacionalización neoliberal
[Latin American Anthropology and Neoliberal Transnationalization].” Paper presented at the
12 L AT I N A M E R I CA N A S S O CI AT I O N OF A NT HR OP OL OGY

Second Congress of the Latin American Association of Anthropology, Costa Rica, July 28–31.
Accessed April 27, 2017, http://www.cubadebate.cu/opinion/2008/08/04/antropologia-
latinoamericana-y-transnacionalizacion-neoliberal/#R40430120170608.
Narosky, Susana. 2006. “Antropologías mundiales: Podemos pensar fuera de los discursos
hegemónicos? [World Anthropologies: We Can Think Outside Hegemonic Discourses].”
Journal of the World Anthropology Network 2: 167–74. Accessed May 26, 2017, http://w.ram-
wan.net/restrepo/antropologias/susana-15.pdf.