Abstract
Where is the local for the ethnographer? A challenge facing anthropological interest in “local biologies” is that both biology and locality are put into practice in different ways. I draw on research with scientists, policy makers, and activists who are all grappling with the influence of nutrition on biological development to illustrate that while biologies may transform from locality to locality, locality also changes form. I juxtapose local biologies of exposure, geopolitics, and global networks to suggest that a strength of ethnography lies in situating materials through practices of translation, attending to the ontological partiality of our objects of concern. Framing “the anthropological perspective” as a care-filled, authored practice of siting and not as a view on the world has implications for how nature is conceived and what the aims of ethnography are taken to be.
Highlights
Where is the local for the ethnographer? A challenge facing anthropological interest in “local biologies” is that both biology and locality are put into practice in different ways
I draw on research with scientists, policy makers, and activists who are all grappling with the influence of nutrition on biological development to illustrate that while biologies may transform from locality to locality, locality changes form
I juxtapose local biologies of exposure, geopolitics, and global networks to suggest that a strength of ethnography lies in situating materials through practices of translation, attending to the ontological partiality of our objects of concern
Summary
Where is the local for the ethnographer? A challenge facing anthropological interest in “local biologies” is that both biology and locality are put into practice in different ways. I use the technique of juxtaposition—connecting through differences—to explore variation in how local biologies are done in practices with the aim of destabilizing the dominance of Euclidian space, and, with this, shifting established expectations for how to constitute the anthropological field This second siting hinges on a commonly used geopolitical map that divides Guatemalan bodies into twenty-two spatial provinces—arguably the most common way of localizing anthropological fieldwork. She began by underscoring the general message of the other speakers: “Early life nutrition is one of the best ways to invest in global development.” She localized the problem of global malnutrition within Guatemala’s geopolitical borders, emphasizing that “Guatemalan children and pregnant women need the commitment of the Guatemalan government to deliver results.”. The local biologies these activists sought to cultivate were at once traditional, ecological, and political; these were localities contingent on cultivating anticapitalist connections
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
