Unfree Labor

ANNUAL REVIEWS Further Click here to view this article's online features: • Download figures as PPT slides • Navigate linked references • Download citations • Explore related articles • Search keywords Unfree Labor Filipe Calvão Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. Department of Anthropology and Sociology of Development, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva 21, Switzerland; email: filipe.calvao@graduateinstitute.ch Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016. 45:451–67 Keywords First published online as a Review in Advance on July 29, 2016 slavery, precarity, ethical work, debt, exploitation, invisibility The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org Abstract This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-100307 c 2016 by Annual Reviews. Copyright  All rights reserved This review examines the ambiguous condition of unfree labor in modern, Fordist, or postindustrial systems of exploitation. Unfree labor is reviewed across two multidisciplinary strands of research. The first pertains to forms of coercion and exploitation of labor in situations of human mobility or bondage—so-called modern-day slavery and human trafficking. The second attends to the effects of precariousness and dependency conceived at the interstice of recent theorizations of affect and belonging. Whereas the first case is framed as an exception, morally and legally condemned, the second is presented as a new ordinary form of inequality. A theoretical and empirical engagement that straddles both literatures under the prism of unfree labor consolidates this renewed anthropological focus on work. This review suggests that the objectification and dehumanization of labor should be placed back at the heart of anthropological reflection to pave the way for a refined scrutiny of exploitation, inequality, and dispossession. 451 INTRODUCTION Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. In the last Annual Review of Anthropology article on the topic of slavery, Kopytoff (1982, p. 223) remarked that the anthropological disengagement from slavery studies had largely deprived the field of theoretical interest. Though retaining its analytical pertinence to debates surrounding reparations, heritage tourism, surrogacy bondage, or the historical memory of enslavement (Allen 1998, Biondi 2003, Graeber 2007, Hartman 2002, Holsey 2008, Ralph 2015, Trouillot 2000), the problem of slavery is by and large absent from anthropological theorizations of contemporary labor. However, like a ghostly presence in dystopian visions of labor gone awry, slavery comes back to haunt and destabilize presumed assumptions about the nature of labor and the lives of workers across the world: slave laborers producing for global consumption, prisoners auctioned off into labor, or women trafficked and sold into slavery.1 Although enslavement has long framed narratives of progress and emancipation, the category of unfreedom in formally free labor regimes sits uneasily in anthropological and social theory to account for unemployment, unpaid work, or the burden of debt. This review brings together studies documenting the extraction of uncompensated or unpaid labor, commonly under the threat of coercive force (e.g., wage theft, forced domestic labor, debt bondage, human trafficking, forced migration), with a bourgeoning literature in anthropology that examines the conditions producing what Allison (2013, p. 7) calls the “precaritization of labor and life.” Taken together, these fields of literature allow for a more detailed approximation to the conditions precluding emancipation or prefiguring social death, and in so doing, they allow us to understand the meaning people attach to changing labor configurations. This review suggests that more than an anomaly, the study of alienating, objectifying, and dehumanizing labor practices, or unfree labor, should be placed back into anthropological research to pave the way for increasingly refined depictions of exploitation, inequality, and dispossession. Debates on work and dependence, wage labor, and unpaid work have gained an added prominence in the twenty-first century, exploring the tension between working less and the workless, the “specter of a wageless life” (Denning 2010, p. 97) and the new politics of distribution (Ferguson 2015). The central problem, however, remains that of the mutuality of dependency and autonomy, freedom and unfreedom. As such, an anthropological critique of capitalism’s inequalities and its unfreedoms that is able to examine work “not only as a machine for the generation of inequalities, but as a political problem of freedom” (Weeks 2011, p. 23) becomes all the more urgent. If shades of freedom and unfreedom permeate workplaces everywhere, what can an anthropology of unfree labor reveal about the trajectory of capitalism and modernity or about the complex and often antithetical conditions of dependence and bondage in debates on dispossession and oppression? In what follows, this review builds from the multidisciplinary literature on coerced labor in processes of human mobility and debt bondage toward emergent forms of unfree labor. It further suggests a conceptualization of unfree labor that links property relations of domination and production to the qualitative experience of exploitative work, and it concludes with a reflection on the future of work as an ethical project of freedom and emancipation rooted in belonging and sociality. 1 It is frequently claimed that more humans live and work as slaves today than ever before in history. These estimates (of roughly 30 million people) are cited in both academic and nonacademic investigations, often underpinned by dubious calculations: Bales (2000, p. 484), for example, notes that despite the 27 million people living in slavery, “the value of slave labor is actually very small in the world economy.” The present review is motivated by this contradiction and the ethnographic context of my research in Angola, where artisanal diamond miners often compare their work to that of slaves, and wage-earning miners describe being deprived of freedom in prison-like corporate compounds. I owe my first foray into the domain of unfree labor to Professor Stephan Palmié, to whom this review is indebted. 452 Calvão Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. FREEDOM AND LABOR: THE PROBLEM OF MODERN-DAY SLAVERY The rhetorical force of a word such as slavery renders it apt for legal and policy-oriented discourse, and the concept remains a fundamental tool with which to analyze historical formations premised on the economic institution of human bondage. However, the use of concepts of slavery or forced labor to describe the complete control over an individual in contemporary labor regimes presupposes rigid categorizations (be they of contract, debt, or chattel slavery) and the exclusion of other forms of oppression (whether nonphysical or indisputably violent). Despite the seemingly clear denotation of slavery as a social category of practice (from the Roman empire to the plantation economy), the question of who or what actually makes a slave as a social category of personhood remains purposefully vague or analytically deceiving.2 The absolute deprivation of freedom squares uneasily with historical and ethnographic evidence of slaves’ willful agentive capacity. If slavery was a germane concept for thinking about comparable labor situations (Palmié 1995), the analytical and conceptual reliance on modern-day slavery may inadvertently blanket important ethnographic and historical differences or overlook the subtler forms of coercion that preclude free, licit, and lawful labor in contemporary societies. Whether one calls it human trafficking, debt bondage, or indentured servitude, to label certain situations as enslavement or forced labor characterizes the domain of labor as invisible, unprotected, unregulated, or unlawful, and thus external to categories of acceptable or free labor. As we know, however, these domains of exploitative labor are the open secret of global commodity chains: They are imagined to be external but are actually integral to the functioning of these chains (Tsing 2009). And yet these cases of enslavement are often presented as symptomatic aberrations that produce a pretense of normalcy in a time of uncertain futures. In other words, a strict opposition between nominally free and unfree labor may end up reinforcing the perceived peculiarity of the institution of slavery (Patterson 1982) against a regime of free labor naturalized in capitalism. This formal binary conceptually and discursively marginalizes as exceptional free labor that is unpaid, uncertain, or actually nonexistent. The relatively scarce engagement with the rich historical and anthropological literature on slavery in decades past stems from a perception of its diminishing ethnographic relevance. However, there is ample evidence to the contrary in recent studies of bonded labor and other forms of unfree labor, from South Asia (Breman & Guérin 2009, Carswell & De Neve 2013, De Neve 2005) to service industry workers in the United States, who perceive the bond of debt as “a kind of slavery” (Gomberg-Muñoz 2010, p. 60). Although migrant workers are not hapless victims of their exploitative condition (De Neve 2005, p. 200), their vulnerability and exposure to debt lead many to become tied to their employers “as slaves” (Carswell & De Neve 2013, p. 446). Shunning some of its most problematic conceptual and analytical risks, the fields of development studies, human geography, and the migration literature have recently emphasized the notion of unfree labor (e.g., Berlan 2013, Fudge & Strauss 2013, Phillips 2013, Strauss 2012), joining a more established use of the term among historians (e.g., Archer 1988, Lovejoy 1994). There is also a dynamic multidisciplinary literature on forced migration and human trafficking, notably on the nexus between law enforcement and practices of deportation, incarceration, and undocumented migration (Colson 2003, De Genova 2005, Fiddian-Qasmiyeh et al. 2014). 2 The legal ambiguity and definitional debates between forced labor and “conditions analogous to slavery” date back to the 1926 Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery. Given its persistence and growing rhetorical traction in humanitarian and international legal frameworks, some have denounced this debate as having been “trafficked” (Mahdavi 2011, p. 211) by “harnessing” the rhetorical and emotional strength of slavery (Quirk 2011, p. 156). www.annualreviews.org • Unfree Labor 453 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. Aside from studies of coerced mobility and the legal category of persons trafficked into forced and uncompensated labor (Brennan 2014, Peters 2015), anthropologists have been more receptive to the notion of smuggling than to the notion of trafficking (Chu 2010).3 Important anthropological work has been published on the commoditization and trafficking of bodies and body parts (Comaroff & Comaroff 2002, Sharp 2000), but the concept of trafficking is more widely used in other disciplines, such as sociology and feminist, legal, and migration studies (Anderson 2004, Hoang 2014, O’Connell 2013, Sanghera 2005, Weitzer 2015).4 Although striving for careful definitions, these analyses tend to undertheorize unfreedom and the production and sale of the commodity—the worker’s labor power and the fruits of his or her labor. The result can be that a “sense of oneself as a commodity” (Pun 2005, p. 183) or of selling oneself or one’s sexuality may be confounded in language and practice with the sale of one’s labor, rooted in a dyadic opposition between the binary categories of free and unfree.5 Ethnographic research is well poised to destabilize simplified images of vulnerability and victimization and to denounce the violence of ready-made media and policy representations of sexual slavery or trafficking (Agustı́n 2007, Doezema 2010, Parreñas 2011). Along with the transformations in the concepts of structure and agency, consciousness, and personhood, the anthropological unease with the interrelated categories of slavery and unfree labor lies in the persistence of a contrast viewed both historically and structurally. The contrast is between a system operating on the basis of the ownership of producers and a system in which labor power is exchanged in return for a wage. In this sense, wage labor and the presumptions of capitalist property relations are treated as not slavery, despite the obscure logics of capital and its coercive forms of domination. The accumulation of value rests on the extraction of unpaid labor, to follow Marx’s canonical definition, and waged or free labor is still coerced, “not by institutions like slavery, but by the imperative that it exchange itself for a wage in order to live” (Parry 2012, p. 150). And yet, capitalism should not be theorized according to a static framework that focuses entirely on the imposing or disciplining of social relations. As Marx (1973, p. 258) put it, “capital is not a simple relation, but a process, in whose various moments it is always capital.” Moreover, paid work can also be not only “less free” but also “differently unfree” (Dunn 2004, p. 167), and recent debates on dependency, the refusal to work, inequality, and the changing conditions of exploitation have thrown in bold relief the need to reconceptualize this divide. The methodological and analytical distinction between slavery and unfree labor, whether in historical terms, context-based approaches, or by way of sliding categorizations (e.g., Goody 1980), has been addressed in the historical and anthropological literature on slavery. As Patterson (1982) suggested, slavery and freedom may be far more connected than we are ready to acknowledge, and the extraction of labor from subservient individuals is not unique to genuine slave societies (Finley 1980) nor to peripheral regions in the global economy. As a geographically expansive and ubiquitous phenomenon, slavery was never a monolithic institution. It oscillated between and coexisted with a wider spectrum of social arrangements and forms of bondage (Palmié 1995) in a 3 Parreñas (2011), for example, proposes the alternative concept of indentured mobility to overcome the quandaries of structural constraints and agency. For a recent review of the anthropological engagement with forced migration studies, see Chatty (2014). 4 This comes at the expense of methodological clarity, with frequent allusions to the paucity of data or a narrow focus on antitrafficking measures (Agustı́n 2007, Mahdavi 2011, Parreñas 2011). 5 A proposed continuum of plural unfreedoms (Breman & Guérin 2009) generates new important questions but does not entirely resolve the issue. The analytic purchase of this continuum, with abundant examples in the literature, is summarized by Palmer (1998, p. xxvii) as stretching between the temporary arrangement of indentured servitude and slavery, which are on the opposite poles of the continuum. 454 Calvão Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. shared cultural framework that bound the alienability of property rights in people and the creative and multidimensional responses to enslavement (Blackburn 1988). The authors of intellectually ambitious projects that sought to reveal variability and comparability across space and time were careful to avoid contrasting these situations with a liberal notion of freedom conceived as the antithesis of the deprivation of autonomy (Kopytoff 1982); rather, their preferred contrast was with a kinship-based form of relational belonging and “affective incorporation” (Kopytoff & Miers 1977, p. 17). This multidisciplinary and collaborative intellectual tradition on slave cultures or the memory of slave trade (Graeber 2006, 2007; Palmié 1995; Shaw 2002) could be brought to bear on the recent and sparse theoretical engagement with the concept of unfree labor, which has been limited rather cursorily to reimagining modes of production “inside out” (Graeber 2006) and to the quandaries of freedom in wage labor (Banaji 2003). The historical and anthropological lessons of this literature are more relevant now than ever, lest we forget Mintz’s (1986) point about the interlocking histories of the plantation economy and the European industrial revolution. Thus the conundrum of where to locate freedom in the transition from slave economies to contemporary labor regimes is not entirely solved. EMERGENT FORMS OF UNFREE LABOR A revitalized anthropological engagement with work has prompted ethnographers to document the myriad ways in which contemporary forms of labor are being reconfigured. It is around these transformations and an emergent constellation of qualities, figurations, and expressions of work that unfree labor potentially coalesces, echoing the need to conceptualize studies of slavery “across the historical threshold between slavery and freedom” (Palmié 1995, p. xviii). In fact, there is an epistemic continuity between the multidisciplinary investigation of unfree labor and a bourgeoning literature in anthropology on the experience of work framed around the quandaries of paid and unpaid, productive and reproductive labor, as well as the situational problem of belonging as opposed to the dehumanizing and objectifying practices of work. The post-Fordist world, with its unrestrained capitalist competition and flexible labor regimes, has been the object of thorough anthropological investigation and theorization. Ethnographers have been attentive to the contradictions of late capitalism as manifest in worker-subject constructions (Freeman 2000, Pun 2005, Salzinger 2003) and in paid and unpaid, affective and immaterial labor (Han 2012; Hardt & Negri 2000; Muehlebach 2011, 2012). If deindustrialization, family relations, and feminized labor in blue-collar America (Dewey 2011, Dudley 1994, Rolston 2014, Walley 2013) command considerable attention, there is a concomitant interest in the loss of wage or job stability, debt, and insecure futures (Bear 2015, Gusterson & Besteman 2010). The lived effects of neoliberalism are not monolithic, and the picture that emerges from the new international division of labor is multifarious and not without its contradictions. This section attends to the changing nature of work as reflected in anthropological research on feminized work, migrant labor, and other forms of precarious and flexible labor. It concludes with a reflection on workplace subjectivities and the problem of belonging and domination. Anthropologists have recently begun attending to the multiple and changing paradigms of work and exploitation in ethnographic studies of job insecurity among white-collar employees (Ho 2009, Lane 2011, Molé 2012). This interest is coupled with the rapid feminization of migrant labor (Sassen 2000) and the growing relevance of the care industry, pivoting around the control of labor, the commoditization of affective and intimate domains, and the entanglements between sexuality and work. This has become one of the most thriving and theoretically promising avenues of anthropological research, revealing the deeply intertwined relation between desiring subjects www.annualreviews.org • Unfree Labor 455 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. and economic activity, sex work, and labor. Truong’s (1990) culturally situated interpretation of sexual work in Thailand or Allison’s (1994) research on hostess clubs in Tokyo paved the way for an ethnographically oriented research detailing the lives of migrant sex workers in postsocialist China (Zheng 2009), Cambodia (Sandy 2014), or Japan (Parreñas 2011), as well as the “ordinary ethics” of former and current sex workers who come to inhabit the world by concealing their “socially dead” persons (Day 2010, p. 299) or struggle to be good mothers (Dewey 2011). The longing for a better future in ever-expanding networks of love, kinship, and transnational marriage migration has also been the object of considerable anthropological attention (Cole 2010, Kelsky 2001, Plambech 2010). These transnational economies of desire binding tourism, labor, and sexuality in the Caribbean (Brennan 2004, Gregory 2007) and parts of Southeast Asia (Agustı́n 2007) are often framed as instances of sex and human trafficking. However, the label of trafficking is dismissed by different authors because it reinforces morally powerful narratives of vulnerability and fails to capture the heterogeneous continuum of abuses, including women who seek in prostitution a way out of coerced domestic labor or better living conditions (Agustı́n 2007, Mahdavi 2011). In the global management of a highly flexible labor market, low-wage jobs and the exploitable labor of subcontracted or migrant workers have also been the locus of ethnographic investigation. Increasingly, research on call center night jobs (Patel 2010), day-labor markets (Dohan 2003, Purser 2012), and “body shops” demonstrates how these labor recruitment agencies are endowed with the capacity to place, pass around, or sell workers across the world (Biao 2006).6 Despite Benson’s (2012, p. 168) reminder that “farm labor conditions have remained hidden from the public eye,” undocumented migrant workers have become the object of considerable study in the United States. Researchers have detailed, for example, the lives of migrant Jamaican women and undocumented Mexican workers in the service industry (Thomas 2008, Gomberg-Muñoz 2010), migrant women in strawberry farms (Sanchez 2013), the laboring conditions of tobacco growers and migrant farmers in North Carolina (Benson 2012), or migrant labor in low-paying industries more generally (Dohan 2003, Striffler 2005). Similarly, recent studies have added much-needed ethnographic detail to the complex and perilous journey of migrants crossing the border into the United States (Holmes 2013, León 2015). The study of poverty and inequality, social disempowerment and dispossession has been most prolific on the concepts of precariousness and precarity (Allison 2013, Das & Randeria 2015, Hébert 2015, Muehlebach 2012, Stewart 2012). Charted alongside the rise of an affective labor economy, these studies seek to detail a wide spectrum of situations framed in terms of destitution, exploitation, and vulnerability but also new emergent forms of “ethical citizenship,” or unpaid labor that is at once exploitative and generative of new forms of belonging (Muehlebach 2012, p. 49). As such, the emerging care industry (Paerregaard 2012, Wright 2013), new forms of labor embodied by trial subjects in drug and clinical tests (Cooper & Waldby 2014) or the widespread plight of unpaid interns forcefully reposition the problem of what constitutes work, from the surplus of affective labor in Italy’s voluntarism (Muehlebach 2012) to faith-based volunteer workforces in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans (Adams 2013). Despite its recent coinage, the concept of precarity has proven germane for a broader register of spaces of affect (Stewart 2012). At the root of the “precariatization of daily life,” Allison (2013, p. 54) writes, is the “feeling of being ‘dispossessed’ by a capitalism that is encroaching ever more insidiously into the life, and lives, of those, the new denizens, for whom everyday security is becoming increasingly precarious as a result.” In the expanding sway of voluntary and unpaid work, 6 Biao (2006, p. 75) tells the story of visiting a placement agency where he was “handed a card reading ‘Sell your friends!’ promising a spotter’s fee of AUD 250.” 456 Calvão Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. precariousness and contingency, debt and job insecurity, this has become for some the unavoidable condition of pauperization (Cho 2012) or boredom as a “persistent form of social suffering” among Romania’s homeless population (O’Neill 2014, p. 11). In China, the work of waiting (Kwon 2015) enables long-term and distant transnational relations in South Korea, either producing a future for the family or deferring it into a present that sinks ever deeper into precariousness. This new ordinary of exclusion reinstates the intricate problem of home and belonging in the analysis of contemporary forms of unfree labor: The antithesis to unfreedom, as Kopytoff & Miers (1977, p. 17) reminded us long ago, is a relational form of affective belonging. Studies have focused on temporary service workers in rental residences (Amason 2015), the loss of home ownership in the aftermath of the financial crisis in Barcelona (Palomera 2014), or the labor camp system in Louisiana’s offshore oil and gas industry, where workers are “in no way forced to stay . . . but neither were they entirely free to move beyond the camp” (Higgins 2005, p. 16). The problem of belonging is all the more critical when the right to live and reside is often contingent on a legally recognizable relation of production, as is the case for migrant domestic work (Frantz 2013, Mahdavi 2011). Forms of labor control and gendered disciplinary regimes on the shop floor and across other workplaces have been well documented (Donham 2011, Dunn 2004, Kondo 1990, Molé 2012, Ong 2010, Salzinger 2003). Disciplining bodies and consciousness, Rofel (1992) notes, produces subversive and unintended effects that reposition the assumed valences of modernity and the constitution of worker-subjects. In this research on the subtle and not-so-subtle ways in which working bodies interpolate and are engaged by economic and social forces of domination, the nature of domination remains purposefully diffuse and ill-defined. This obscurity reflects the complex and contradictory manifestations of global capital and the abstracted conceptualizations of power. For example, Pun (2005) pointedly highlights the paradox of alienation and subjecthood in young rural women’s desire to escape home to become dagongmei, the feminine casual and temporary laborer for hire most prevalent in factories in Shenzen, China. The hidden, invisible, and obscure disciplinary power and tactics revealed in constituting the worker-qua-dagong subject are reminiscent of Dunn’s (2004) account of the insidious power that can transform workers into flexible and invisible subjects in a Polish baby food factory. Implicit in this conversation is a debate about worth, recognition, and the language of labor and emancipation. The dawn of a postindustrial America, Dudley (1994, p. 181) reminds us in her ethnography of a car factory closing in Wisconsin, is not a “unitary consensus” but a “cultural debate about . . . the value of the work we do and the worth of the people we are,” a struggle for meaning that is familiar to those who lived through the demise of Chicago’s steel mill industry (Walley 2013). This debate harks back to the Enlightenment view of manual labor as the basis of human happiness and of the separation between mechanical and fine arts. If the emancipatory narrative of the Enlightenment had been turned into a “system of universal oppression” (Harvey 1989, p. 13), Wong (2013, p. 10) flips the problem on its head by defying the Romanticist “universal belief in alienation of labor in copying and the individualizing power of creativity.” Describing with rare insight Dafen’s iconic painting factories, Wong suggests that the division of labor in large workshops does not entail the loss of skill. In fact, it can become generative of creativity and artistic originality, such as when a painting is considered the production of an individual after being touched by multiple hands. The important point, Wong reminds us, is that the language of wages or exploitation is misguided for presuming that “Dafen is a monolithic industrialized factory in which salaried assembly line laborers were merely repeating the same limited tasks” (Wong 2013, p. 74). This “condition of work” is “exactly like the flexible, specialized, and bespoke mode of global production in which contemporary artists function, and it is exactly unlike the industrial mode of manufacture or mechanical production” (Wong 2013, pp. 15–16). In inherently unstable www.annualreviews.org • Unfree Labor 457 and contradictory work imaginaries, such as when human labor itself is engendered as a biosecurity threat in factory-like farms (Blanchette 2015), what amounts to a meaningful expression of labor consciousness, alienation, and subject formation begs further ethnographic inquiry. PROPERTIES OF LABOR, QUALITIES OF WORK Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. If unfreedom is produced, how is it made manifest, and what qualities of the thing produced do we embody? The problem here (and this is not new) is, first, how structures of domination and feeling are abstracted and thus, we claim, are hidden and obscured from the agents of production, and second, how these invisible structures come to bear on and become perceivable through social life. This dilemma is not entirely solved by a production-centered analysis of capital accumulation (wage labor), by the analytic and methodological privileging of the commodity and its cultural imprint, or by an analysis of worker-subject transformations in the workplace inspired by Foucault’s conceptualization of power at the level of diffuse and capillary tactics. In the view suggested here, the value of labor lies not in the finished good but in a mode of relational and productive action. This entails, in other words, a conceptualization of unfree labor that links property relations of domination and production to the qualitative experience of exploitative work, which is to say an understanding of how the subjects of labor can become the objects of work, and vice versa.7 By reconceptualizing unfree labor as manifest in the specific qualities of working and the properties of things worked, it becomes possible to articulate disparate social processes in which a quality of unfreedom is at work, be it debt, illegality, flexibility, or the myriad of feelings enmeshed in working lives. Echoing an early literature dealing with the qualities and styles of work, from the practice of hustling (Valentine 1978) to Willis’s (1977) ethnography of “lads’ culture” where work is marked as an activity such as joking or having a laugh, I posit these diverse experiences across a range of qualities and value transformations in the making of workers’ lives. For example, there is a convergent sense of abjection, as experienced by Zambian copper miners discarded from the promises heralded by modernity (Ferguson 1999) or by those who suffer from mobbing in the Italian workplace (Molé 2012, p. 9). These structures of feeling are anchored in a multiplicity of experiences of dispossession, exclusion, and loss, and further attention should be paid to how these sensuous qualities align with or orient the practice and experience of unfreedom.8 In this reading of unfree labor, a productive space emerges to theorize the dynamic linkages among labor processes, property relations, and the properties of objects. Different authors have highlighted the generative potential of theorizing work and commodities in tandem. In both Coleman’s (2012) study of hacking and Wong’s (2013) analysis of Dafen’s painting factories, for example, the producer is extended onto the product itself, be it a digital artifact or painting, co-creating value that can be recirculated in the author, person, and the commodity itself. Chu (2010), for example, unveils to great effect the unseemly entanglements of human smuggling and paperwork in the work that goes into making persons in circulation, and Rolston (2013) explores how the lives of coal miners are bound by their intimacy with machinery, mining equipment, or the properties of natural resources. Similarly, Hankins (2014) examines the labor of multiculturalism to trace the shifting and elusive recognition faced by many Burakumin in Japan, caught in the dilemma of becoming full, liberal citizens and losing the economic stability 7 This perspective is in contradiction with the classical distinction between abstract labor and work, which pits the fabrication of an object “whose end has come when the object is finished” against labor as the “condition of life itself ” (Arendt 2000, pp. 171–72). 8 In semiotic terms, these qualities can be understood as qualia, or indexes that materialize as qualities in human activity and provide “points of orientation in social action” (Harkness 2015, p. 574). 458 Calvão Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. of tannery work upon which their discrimination rests. In detailing the labor of producing signs and its effects on those who labor and the objects they produce, Hankins moves between the polluting qualities of tanning leather and the production of a social and identity category, between masculine factory labor and the femininity of activist work and care, all within the same frame of evaluation. Consider the metonymical association deployed by migrant tobacco farmworkers between remuneration (the paycheck) and el campo (standing in for various aspects of life and farm work). When workers describe pay as being muy campo, Benson points out (2012, p. 167), the “paycheck becomes a synecdoche, an illuminative fragment of the mean face of depravity and structural violence.” But more importantly, the linkage between a paycheck and the qualities of living and working in a labor camp comes to denote “an experiential aspect of farm labor, the feeling of being ‘other’ and on the ‘outside,’ that is produced and naturalized in relations of economic exploitation” (Benson 2012, p. 177). In other words, these material, aesthetic, and sensorial fragments of labor are collated as specific experiential qualities of work, indexing the ways in which unfree labor can be controlled, contested, or encoded. This framework approaches the apparent materiality of objects with attention to the seeming immateriality of process and the signs that orient social life through specific qualities (Calvão 2013, Chumley & Harkness 2013, Munn 1986). This means extending the analytically available domains’ objectification to include the semiotic and performative purview of other materials and practices in ethnographic points of intersection, be it the junction of paperwork and cosmologies (Chu 2010), the sale of fish as a nexus of migrant labor and citizenship (Fikes 2009), or the insecurity reproduced in job training as a condition for ethical mining in Canada’s diamond fields (Bell 2010). This framework is particularly compelling for the methodological repositioning of the work of invisibility and transparency. As both vehicles of and evaluative states of signification, invisibility and transparency become attached to the properties of specific objects and qualitative experiences, or, to follow Hebdige (1979), to the semiotic quality of ideology that can render production legible or “invisible by its own transparency” (Stuart Hall, cited in Hebdige 1979, p. 11). In studies of labor, the analytical purview of liminality and continuum has been reinstated to capture the porous and deceiving distinction between paid and unpaid labor. Among worker peasantries in northern Italy, for example, workers straddle different liminal groups in worlds of enchantment and disenchantment (Holmes 1989; cf. Chu 2010), and Purser (2012, p. 30) shows how the day labor industry sustains “liminality through the temporal expropriation and spatial retention of labor ‘on demand.’” One point frequently mentioned when examining unfree labor is the challenging analytic purview and metonymic resonances of a category deemed invisible, such as the voluntary but de facto forced migrant farmworkers described by Seth Holmes (2013, p. 188), with no “valid separation between the political and the economic forces impelling them.” The literature abounds with examples, from suffering bodies as “invisible” social actors (Fassin 2007, p. 278) to the social “invisibility” of refugees (Ong 2003, p. 280) or of domestic and sex workers who are kept out of sight, notwithstanding their “hypervisibility in global conversations on human trafficking” (Mahdavi 2011, p. 62). Discussing the work of Paul Farmer, Benson (2012, p. 169) rightfully suggests that the “problem is not that suffering is invisible or its causes unknown, but rather that individuals and whole groups can have something at stake in actively overlooking and taking distance from other people’s suffering.” This approach should bear on the ethereal condition of domination in the “transcendence abstraction of the corporate form,” as Graeber (2006, p. 81) would propose in his unfinished thesis on modes of production. With an eye toward the study of unfreedom, consider this interplay between transparency and hiddenness in corporate settings and global supply chains (e.g., Tsing 2009, p. 163). This comes at the point, inadvertently, when large corporations are increasingly facing public, legal, www.annualreviews.org • Unfree Labor 459 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. and criminal scrutiny over the use of slave labor, despite their appropriation of ethical discourses from activists and development agents (Kirsch 2014, Welker 2014) and their continuous portrayal of themselves as horizontal, transparent, and seamless spaces of labor relations.9 This interplay— and the contradictions it represents—is particularly salient across mining economies of the Global South, where an important strand of research details the labor of extracting value from nature in the entanglements between corporate and state actors, indigenous populations, activists, and local communities, each space revealing its own particular mutation of neoliberalism (Ferguson 2006, Li 2015, Sawyer 2004). Recent ethnographic work on mining in Melanesia, for example, offers a theoretically sophisticated and empirically grounded framework with which to conceptualize the co-constructed enactment of the corporate industry in its discursive and relational engagement with other actors and critics (Golub 2014, Kirsch 2014, Welker 2014). If the history of these moral economies and the social and gender-based politics and tactics of identity in mining compounds have been well documented (Donham 2011, Moodie 1994), recent research points in different directions. For Appel’s interlocutors in Equatorial Guinea, for example, the experience of working in oil rigs is framed around the perceived qualities of “work[ing] like an American” or “work[ing] like an African,” each accorded different properties of stability, security, and labor time (Appel 2012, p. 705). In the case of Angola, diamonds can be perceived as voracious creatures or capricious commodities (Calvão 2013, De Boeck 2000) while seemingly exposing the bare life of miners in gripping accounts of slave work. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, militias have forced many to “slave labor” (Smith 2011, p. 19), and the collaborative qualities of movement can serve as points of reference between the extractive work and the time of digital economies. This speaks to Mbembe’s (2006, p. 302) point on the “osmosis” between “extractive activity, warfare and mercantile activity” in enclave mineral economies. The violence of such labor regimes and the extraction of brute value partake in increasingly connected transnational networks of technology, bureaucracy, and activism, as demonstrated in the Burakumin plight of being a minority or embracing a multicultural Japan (Hankins 2014) or in Kirsch’s (2014) analysis of an emergent coalition of critics against the inexorable destructive path of mining corporations. And yet, speaking about the disciplinary effects of control in a South African gold mine in the wake of postapartheid, Donham (2011, pp. 102–8) describes the bureaucratic attempt by the mining corporation to impose an ethnic identity on its workers, which ultimately led to a series of violent conflicts. The problem, thus, can be resituated along the lines of rendering work transparent, legible, and visible by giving empirical attention to its performative and material qualities, a point that recent studies of audit cultures have aptly demonstrated (Kipnis 2008). As Hetherington (2012, p. 243) puts it, “if transparency fails to empower an ideal individual that it takes to pre-exist its own ministrations, it does succeed in redistributing agency in a variety of other ways.” By following the experiential linkage of things and qualities in a spectrum of modalities that go from embodiment to sensuous experiences around the same quality of unfreedom, these concealed and hidden forms of labor domination may be revealed, which are themselves productive of an expanding spatiotemporal nexus of relations (Munn 1986). TOWARD ETHICAL WORK Dwelling on the spaces of vulnerability and abandonment and the generative potentiality of “a new ethics of life and sociability,” Povinelli (2011, pp. 109–10) asks if “theory and practice [should] 9 See, for example, the recent lawsuit against Nestlé’s use of child slaves in Ivory Coast’s cocoa plantations, or the Brazilian conglomerate Odebrecht, proven guilty in a Brazilian court of enslaving its own Brazilian workforce in Angola. 460 Calvão Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. celebrate these spaces as fostering (or more minimally, providing conditions of ) practices of freedom in Foucault’s sense.” In line with the renewed attention to the ethnographic and historical representation of unfreedom proposed here, it seems fitting to conclude this review of emergent forms of unfree labor with the ethical problem of freedom and the divide Povinelli (2011, p. 110) identifies between those who reflect on and those who lead their lives in relationship to ethical substance. Instead of approaching unfree labor from the standpoint of negative exclusion and marginality or moral connotations (be it by criminalizing or victimizing), the prism of unfreedom allows anthropologists to reposition center stage the “ethical problem of practicing freedom” (Foucault 1997, p. 284), and thus to contribute to a bourgeoning reflection on ethics and freedom (Keane 2015, Laidlaw 2013). Although freedom has been the object of limited anthropological reflection (Laidlaw 2002), the increasing saturation of accountability, evaluative transparency, and standardization in a new “ethical life” (Keane 2015) bodes well for the ethnographic study of unfree labor. This should be informed by thought and reflection (Laidlaw 2013) and the multiple “arrangements of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexuality, age, and citizenship status” (Tsing 2009, p. 158) at play in social interactions of self and others (Keane 2015). Given the conceptual limitations of agency for the study of ethics and freedom (Laidlaw 2002, p. 315), a new theorizing of resistance alongside the aspirational and heterogeneous work of “practicing freedom” may indeed be necessary. This would invite “a poetics of transgression that should be more creative, multifronted, and penetrable to the power matrix of capital, state, and the effects of sociocultural discourses in this increasingly globalized world” (Pun 2005, p. 195). As such, an anthropology of a “new form of commonwealth” that “attempts to humanly and collectively survive precarity” (Allison 2013, p. 18) could start by asking what sort of collective historical actor is thus constituted and whether it is attached to a class, the transcendental corporate, or a new common. For Marx (1978, p. 197), the total social power of individual producers could not be set apart, for if labor exploitation is collective, so is the constitution of new and potentially liberating social relationships: “Only in community . . . is personal freedom possible.” This common is the key to political action, Hardt & Negri (2004) suggest.10 But what exactly does this entail for emancipation as recognition of value and power—of the true nature of labor? The end of an inside-out dialectic does not represent the end of exploitation—now in the möbius-strip shape of a biopolitical, undulatory process of social constitution—but its resistance implies “desertion” or the “evacuation of places of power” (Hardt & Negri 2000, p. 213). If “new productive forces have no place” and the “universality of human creativity, the synthesis of freedom, desire, and living labor, is what takes place in the nonplace of the postmodern relations of production” (Hardt & Negri 2000, p. 210), the prospect of truly emancipatory, free labor would be irrevocably confined to a nonplace of undisputed hegemonies in the new capitalist project of fusing immaterial production with biopower. Rather, an understanding of labor as a relational and creative process enabling the production of value in people avoids the pitfalls of a free individuality positively charged with will and intentionality. This study of free, ethical work should be further attentive to the blurring between work and nonwork, forms of self-exploitation in the so-called sharing economy, and the diversity of singularity within capitalism (Tsing 2009). If the problem rests upon nontransparent relations of production in “some higher sphere, whether of economic values, or idealist abstractions” (Graeber 2006, p. 75), new forms of collaborative research (Pun & Chan 2012) and ethnographic 10 “Insofar as the multitude is neither an identity (like the people) nor uniform (like the masses), the internal differences of the multitude must discover the common that allows them to communicate and act together” (Hardt & Negri 2004, p. xv). www.annualreviews.org • Unfree Labor 461 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. attention to collective intimacy (Watanabe 2014) or “hedonopolitics” (Kivland 2014) bode well for an increasingly refined anthropological understanding of exploitation and domination. This review has suggested that objectifying and dehumanizing labor practices should be placed back at the heart of anthropological reflection to pave the way for an increasingly refined scrutiny of exploitation, inequality, and dispossession. Further research is needed on the conditions creating unfreedom as well as on the unintended qualities and experiences of unfree labor. If transparency and invisibility may appear insurmountable, the future cannot be molded on the basis of a precarious present (Hébert 2015); indeed, the future may hold an encouraging promise for new and emerging collaborative experiences (Cepek 2012). If constituted as a relay node between formal and informal work, paid and unpaid labor, licit and illicit economies, unfree labor may help demystify presumptions about capitalist property relations and their subtle but coercive forces of domination. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am thankful to Shalini Randeria for invaluable guidance and advice, as well as an anonymous reviewer, Claudia Cruz Leo, Lindsay Bell, Chelsey Kivland, Nicholas Harkness, and Matthew Archer for helpful suggestions on earlier versions of this article. LITERATURE CITED Adams V. 2013. Markets of Sorrow, Labors of Faith: New Orleans in the Wake of Katrina. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Agustı́n LM. 2007. Sex at the Margins: Migration, Labour Markets and the Rescue Industry. London: Zed Books Allen AL. 1998. Slavery and surrogacy. In Subjugation and Bondage, ed. TL Lott, pp. 229–54. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Allison A. 1994. Nightwork: Sexuality, Pleasure, and Corporate Masculinity in a Tokyo Hostess Club. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Allison A. 2013. Precarious Japan. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Amason JH. 2015. Uncertain lives: neoliberalism and the shaping of home among service workers in Gatlinburg. N. Am. Dialogue 18(1):1–14 Anderson B. 2004. Migrant domestic workers and slavery. In The Political Economy of New Slavery, ed. C. Anker, pp. 107–17. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Appel H. 2012. Offshore work: oil, modularity, and the how of capitalism in equatorial Guinea. Am. Ethnol. 29(4):692–709 Archer LJ, ed. 1988. Slavery and Other Forms of Unfree Labour. London: Routledge Arendt H. 2000. Labor, work, action. In The Portable Hannah Arendt, pp. 167–81. London: Penguin Bales K. 2000. Expendable people: slavery in the age of globalization. J. Int. Aff. 53(2):461–84 Banaji J. 2003. The fictions of free labour: contract, coercion, and so-called unfree labour. Hist. Mater. 11(3):69– 95 Bear L. 2015. Navigating Austerity: Currents of Debt Along a South Asian River. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Bell L. 2010. Economic insecurity as opportunity: job training and the Canadian diamond industry. In Humanizing Security in the Arctic, ed. M Daveluy, F Lévesque, J Ferguson, pp. 293–304. Edmonton, Can.: Can. Circumpolar Inst. Press 462 Calvão Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. Benson P. 2012. Tobacco Capitalism: Growers, Migrant Workers, and the Changing Face of a Global Industry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Berlan A. 2013. Social sustainability in agriculture: an anthropological perspective on child labour in cocoa production in Ghana. J. Dev. Stud. 49(8):1088–100 Biao X. 2006. Global “Body Shopping”: An Indian Labor System in the Information Technology Industry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Biondi M. 2003. The rise of the reparations movement. Radic. Hist. Rev. 87:5–18 Blackburn R. 1988. Slavery—its special features and social role. In Slavery and Other Forms of Unfree Labour, ed. L Archer, pp. 262–79. London: Routledge Blanchette A. 2015. Herding species: biosecurity, posthuman labor, and the American industrial pig. Cult. Anthropol. 30(4):640–69 Breman J, Guérin I. 2009. On bondage: old and new. In India’s Unfree Workforce: Of Bondage Old and New, J Breman, I Guérin, A Prakash, pp. 1–20. New Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press Brennan D. 2004. What’s Love Got to Do with It? Transnational Desires and Sex Tourism in the Dominican Republic. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Brennan D. 2014. Life Interrupted: Trafficking into Forced Labor in the United States. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Calvão F. 2013. The transporter, the agitator, and the kamanguista: qualia and the in/visible materiality of diamonds. Anthropol. Theory 12(1–2):119–36 Carswell G, De Neve G. 2013. From field to factory: tracing transformations in bonded labour in the Tiruppur region, Tamil Nadu. Econ. Soc. 42(3):430–54 Cepek M. 2012. A Future for Amazonia: Randy Borman and Cofán Environmental Politics. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press Chatty D. 2014. Anthropology and forced migration. In The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, ed. E Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, G Loescher, K Long, N Sigona, pp. 74–85. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Cho MY. 2012. “Dividing the poor”: state governance of differential impoverishment in northeast China. Am. Ethnol. 39(1):187–200 Chu JY. 2010. Cosmologies of Credit: Transnational Mobility and the Politics of Destination in China. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Chumley LH, Harkness N. 2013. Introduction: QUALIA. Anthropol. Theory 13(1–2):3–11 Cole J. 2010. Sex and Salvation: Imagining the Future in Madagascar. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Coleman G. 2012. Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Colson E. 2003. Forced migration and the anthropological response. J. Refug. Stud. 16(1):1–18 Comaroff J, Comaroff J. 2002. Alien-nation: zombies, immigrants, and millennial capitalism. South Atl. Q. 101(4):779–805 Cooper M, Waldby C. 2014. Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Bioeconomy. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Das V, Randeria S. 2015. Politics of the urban poor: aesthetics, ethics, volatility, precarity. An introduction to Supplement 11. Curr. Anthropol. 56(S11):S3–14 Day S. 2010. Ethics between public and private: sex workers’ relationships in London. In Ordinary Ethics: Anthropology, Language, and Action, ed. M Lambek, pp. 292–309. New York: Fordham Univ. Press De Boeck F. 2000. Borderland breccia: the mutant hero in the historical imagination of a Central-African diamond frontier. J. Colon. Colon. Hist. 1(2):1–43 De Genova N. 2005. Working the Boundaries: Race, Space, and “Illegality” in Mexican Chicago. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press De Neve G. 2005. The Everyday Politics of Labour: Working Lives in India’s Informal Economy. New Delhi: Soc. Sci. Denning M. 2010. Wageless life. New Left Rev. 66:79–97 Dewey S. 2011. Neon Wasteland: On Love, Motherhood, and Sex Work in a Rust Belt Town. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Doezema J. 2010. Sex Slaves and Discourse Masters: The Construction of Trafficking. London: Zed Books www.annualreviews.org • Unfree Labor 463 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. Dohan D. 2003. The Price of Poverty: Money, Work, and Culture in the Mexican American Barrio. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Donham DL. 2011. Violence in a Time of Liberation: Murder and Ethnicity at a South African Gold Mine, 1994. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Dudley KM. 1994. The End of the Line: Lost Jobs, New Lives in Postindustrial America. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Dunn EC. 2004. Privatizing Poland: Baby Food, Big Business, and the Remaking of Labor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Fassin D. 2007. When Bodies Remember: Experiences and Politics of AIDS in South Africa. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Ferguson J. 1999. Expectations of Modernity: Myths and Meanings of Urban Life on the Zambian Copperbelt. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Ferguson J. 2006. Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Ferguson J. 2015. Give a Man a Fish: Reflections on the New Politics of Distribution. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Fiddian-Qasmiyeh E, Loescher G, Long K, Sigona N. 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Fikes K. 2009. Managing African Portugal: The Citizen-Migrant Distinction. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Finley MI. 1980. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. London: Chatto & Windus Foucault M. 1997. Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. New York: Penguin Frantz E. 2013. Jordan’s unfree workforce: state-sponsored bonded labour in the Arab region. J. Dev. Stud. 49(8):1072–87 Freeman C. 2000. High Tech and High Heels in the Global Economy: Women, Work, and Pink-Collar Identities in the Caribbean. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Fudge J, Strauss K, eds. 2013. Temporary Work, Agencies, and Unfree Labour: Insecurity in the New World of Work. New York: Routledge Golub A. 2014. Leviathans at the Gold Mine: Creating Indigenous and Corporate Actors in Papua New Guinea. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Gomberg-Muñoz R. 2010. Labor and Legality: An Ethnography of a Mexican Immigrant Network. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Goody J. 1980. Slavery in time and space. In African and Asian Systems of Slavery, ed. JL Watson, pp. 16–42. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Graeber D. 2006. Turning modes of production inside out: or, why capitalism is a transformation of slavery. Crit. Anthropol. 26(1):61–85 Graeber D. 2007. Lost People: Magic and the Legacy of Slavery in Madagascar. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press Gregory S. 2007. The Devil Behind the Mirror: Globalization and Politics in the Dominican Republic. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Gusterson H, Besteman C. 2010. The Insecure American: How We Got Here and What We Should Do About It. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Han C. 2012. Life in Debt: Times of Care and Violence in Neoliberal Chile. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Hankins J. 2014. Working Skin: Making Leather, Making a Multicultural Japan. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Hardt M, Negri A. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Hardt M, Negri A. 2004. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York: Penguin Harkness N. 2015. The pragmatics of qualia in practice. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 44:573–89 Hartman S. 2002. The time of slavery. South Atl. Q. 101:757–77 Harvey D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell Hebdige D. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge Hébert K. 2015. Enduring capitalism: instability, precariousness, and cycles of change in an Alaskan salmon fishery. Am. Anthropol. 117(1):32–46 Hetherington K. 2012. Agency, scale, and the ethnography of transparency. Polit. Legal Anthropol. Rev. 35(2):242–47 464 Calvão Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. Higgins R. 2005. Bodies for rent: labor and marginality in southern Louisiana. Anthropol. Work Rev. 26(3):12– 22 Ho K. 2009. Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Hoang KK, Parreñas RS. 2014. Human Traffficking Reconsidered: Rethinking the Problem, Envisoning New Solutions. London: Int. Debate Educ. Assoc. Holmes D. 1989. Cultural Disenchantments: Worker Peasantries in Northeast Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Holmes S. 2013. Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies: Migrant Farmworkers in the United States. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Holsey B. 2008. Routes of Remembrance: Refashioning the Slave Trade in Ghana. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Keane W. 2015. Ethical Life: Its Natural and Social Histories. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Kelsky K. 2001. Women on the Verge: Japanese Women, Western Dreams. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Kipnis A. 2008. Audit cultures: neoliberal governmentality, socialist legacy, or technologies of governing? Am. Ethnol. 35(2):275–89 Kirsch S. 2014. Mining Capitalism: The Relationship Between Corporations and Their Critics. Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press Kivland C. 2014. Becoming a force in the zone: hedonopolitics, masculinity, and the quest for respect in Haiti’s streets. Cult. Anthropol. 29(4):672–98 Kondo D. 1990. Crafting Selves: Power, Gender, and Discourses of Identity in a Japanese Workplace. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Kopytoff I. 1982. Slavery. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 11:207–30 Kopytoff M, Miers S. 1977. Introduction: African “slavery” as an institution of marginality. In Slavery in Africa: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. S Miers, M Kopytoff, pp. 3–81. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press Kwon JH. 2015. The work of waiting: love and money in Korean Chinese transnational migration. Cult. Anthropol. 30(3):477–500 Laidlaw J. 2002. For an anthropology of ethics and freedom. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 8(2):311–32 Laidlaw J. 2013. The Subject of Virtue: An Anthropology of Ethics and Freedom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Lane CM. 2011. A Company of One: Insecurity, Independence, and the New World of White-Collar Unemployment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press León J. 2015. The Land of Open Graves: Living and Dying on the Migrant Trail. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Li F. 2015. Unearthing Conflict: Corporate Mining, Activism, and Expertise in Peru. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Lovejoy PE, Rogers N, eds. 1994. Unfree Labour in the Development of the Atlantic World. New York: Routledge Mahdavi P. 2011. Gridlock: Labor, Migration, and Human Trafficking in Dubai. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Marx K. 1973. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. New York: Penguin Marx K. 1978. German ideology. In The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. RC Tucker, pp. 146–200. New York: Norton Mbembe A. 2006. On politics as a form of expenditure. In Law and Disorder in the Postcolony, ed. J Comaroff, JL Comaroff, pp. 299–335. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Mintz SW. 1986. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: Penguin Molé NJ. 2012. Labor Disorders in Neoliberal Italy: Mobbing, Well-Being, and the Workplace. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press Moodie TD. 1994. Going for Gold: Men, Mines, and Migration. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Muehlebach A. 2011. On affective labor in post-Fordist Italy. Cult. Anthropol. 26(1):59–82 Muehlebach A. 2012. Moral Neoliberal: Welfare and Citizenship in Italy. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Munn N. 1986. The Fame of Gawa: A Symbolic Study of Value Transformation in a Massim Society (Papua New Guinea). Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press O’Connell DJ. 2013. Troubling freedom: migration, debt, and modern slavery. Migr. Stud. 1(2):176–95 O’Neill B. 2014. Caste aside: boredom, downward mobility, and homelessness in post-communist Bucharest. Cult. Anthropol. 29(1):8–31 Ong A. 2003. Buddha Is Hiding: Refugees, Citizenship, the New America. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press www.annualreviews.org • Unfree Labor 465 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. Ong A. 2010. Spirits of Resistance and Capitalist Discipline: Factory Women in Malaysia. Albany: SUNY Press Paerregaard K. 2012. Commodifying intimacy: women, work, and care in Peruvian migration. J. Lat. Am. Caribb. Anthropol. 17(3):493–511 Palmer C. 1998. Introduction. In The Worlds of Unfree Labour: from indentured servitude to slavery, ed. C Palmer, xiii–xxxiii, Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Palmié S. 1995. Introduction: Slave Cultures and the Cultures of Slavery. Knoxville: Univ. Tenn. Press Palomera J. 2014. Reciprocity, commodification, and poverty in the era of financialization. Curr. Anthropol. 55(S9):105–15 Parreñas R. 2011. Illicit Flirtations: Labor, Migration, and Sex Trafficking in Tokyo. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Parry J. 2012. Industrial work. In A Handbook of Economic Anthropology, ed. J Carrier, pp. 141–59. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ. Patel R. 2010. Working the Night Shift: Women in India’s Call Center Industry. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Patterson O. 1982. Slavery and Social Death. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Peters A. 2015. Responding to Human Trafficking: Sex, Gender, and Culture in the Law. Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press Phillips N. 2013. Unfree labour and adverse incorporation in the global economy: comparative perspectives on Brazil and India. Econ. Soc. 42(2):171–96 Plambech S. 2010. From Thailand with love: transnational marriage migration in the global care economy. In Sex Trafficking, Human Rights, and Social Justice, ed. T Zheng, pp. 47–61. New York: Routledge Povinelli EA. 2011. Economies of Abandonment: Social Belonging and Endurance in Late Liberalism. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Pun N. 2005. Made in China: Women Factory Workers in a Global Workplace. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Pun N, Chan J. 2012. Global capital, the state, and Chinese workers: the Foxconn experience. Mod. China 38(4):383–410 Purser G. 2012. The labour of liminality. Labour Cap. Soc. 45(1):10–35 Quirk J. 2011. The Anti-Slavery Project: From Slave Trade to Human Trafficking. Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press Ralph M. 2015. Forensics of Capital. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Rofel L. 1992. Rethinking modernity: space and factory discipline in China. Cult. Anthropol. 7(1):93–114 Rolston J. 2013. The politics of pits and the materiality of mine labor: making natural resources in the American West. Am. Ethnol. 115(4):582–94 Rolston J. 2014. Mining Coal and Undermining Gender. Rhythms of Work and Family in the American West. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press Salzinger L. 2003. Genders in Production: Making Workers in Mexico’s Global Factories. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Sanchez TF. 2013. Californian strawberries: Mexican immigrant women sharecroppers, labor, and discipline. Anthropol. Work Rev. 34(1):15–26 Sandy L. 2014. Women and Sex Work in Cambodia: Blood, Sweat and Tears. New York: Routledge Sanghera J. 2005. Unpacking the trafficking discourse. In Trafficking and Prostitution Reconsidered: New Perspectives on Migration, Sex Work, and Human Rights, ed. K Kempadoo, J Sanghera, B Pattanaik, pp. 3–24. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publ. Sassen S. 2000. Women’s burden: counter geographies of globalization and the feminization of survival. J. Int. Aff. 53:503–25 Sawyer S. 2004. Crude Chronicles: Indigenous Politics, Multinational Oil, and Neoliberalism in Ecuador. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Sharp LA. 2000. The commodification of the body and its parts. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 29:287–328 Shaw R. 2002. Memories of the Slave Trade: Ritual and the Historical Imagination in Sierra Leone. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Smith JH. 2011. Tantalus in the digital age: coltan ore, temporal dispossession, and “movement” in the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Am. Ethnol. 38(1):17–35 Stewart K. 2012. Precarity’s forms. Cult. Anthropol. 27(3):518–25 466 Calvão Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. Strauss K. 2012. Coerced, forced and unfree labour: geographies of exploitation in contemporary labour markets. Geogr. Compass 6(3):137–48 Striffler S. 2005. Chicken: The Dangerous Transformations of America’s Favorite Food. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press Thomas D. 2008. Wal-Mart, “Katrina,” and other ideological tricks: Jamaican hotel workers in Michigan. Fem. Rev. 90:68–86 Trouillot M-R. 2000. Abortive rituals: historical apologies in the global era. Interventions 2:171–86 Truong T-D. 1990. Sex, Money and Morality: Prostitution and Tourism in Southeast Asia. London: Zed Books Tsing A. 2009. Supply chains and the human condition. Rethink. Marx. 21(2):148–76 Valentine B. 1978. Hustling and Other Hard Work. New York: Free Press Walley C. 2013. Exit Zero: Family and Class in Postindustrial Chicago. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Watanabe C. 2014. Muddy labor: a Japanese aid ethic of collective intimacy in Myanmar. Cult. Anthropol. 29(4):648–71 Weeks K. 2011. The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Weitzer R. 2015. Human trafficking and contemporary slavery. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 41:223–42 Welker M. 2014. Enacting the corporation: an American mining firm in post-authoritarian Indonesia. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Willis P. 1977. Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Wong W. 2013. Van Gogh on Demand: China and the Readymade. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Wright R. 2013. When more is less: contradictions of nonprofit work. Anthropol. Work Rev. 34(2):80–90 Zheng T. 2009. Red Lights: The Lives of Sex Workers in Postsocialist China. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press www.annualreviews.org • Unfree Labor 467 Annual Review of Anthropology Contents Volume 45, 2016 Perspective Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. A Life in Evolutionary Anthropology Clifford J. Jolly ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 1 Archaeology Archaeological Evidence of Epidemics Can Inform Future Epidemics Sharon N. DeWitte ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣63 Collaborative Archaeologies and Descendant Communities Chip Colwell ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 113 Reaching the Point of No Return: The Computational Revolution in Archaeology Leore Grosman ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 129 Archaeologies of Ontology Benjamin Alberti ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 163 Archaeology and Contemporary Warfare Susan Pollock ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 215 The Archaeology of Pastoral Nomadism William Honeychurch and Cheryl A. Makarewicz ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 341 Urbanism and Anthropogenic Landscapes Arlen F. Chase and Diane Z. Chase ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 361 Decolonizing Archaeological Thought in South America Alejandro Haber ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 469 Biological Anthropology Out of Asia: Anthropoid Origins and the Colonization of Africa K. Christopher Beard ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 199 Early Environments, Stress, and the Epigenetics of Human Health Connie J. Mulligan ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 233 vi Native American Genomics and Population Histories Deborah A. Bolnick, Jennifer A. Raff, Lauren C. Springs, Austin W. Reynolds, and Aida T. Miró-Herrans ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 319 Disease and Human/Animal Interactions Michael P. Muehlenbein ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 395 Anthropology of Language and Communicative Practices Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. Intellectual Property, Piracy, and Counterfeiting Alexander S. Dent ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣17 Science Talk and Scientific Reference Matthew Wolfgram ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣33 Language, Translation, Trauma Alex Pillen ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣95 (Dis)fluency Jürgen Jaspers ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 147 Some Recent Trends in the Linguistic Anthropology of Native North America Paul V. Kroskrity ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 267 Sociocultural Anthropology Urban Space and Exclusion in Asia Erik Harms ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣45 Historicity and Anthropology Charles Stewart ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣79 Anthropological STS in Asia Michael M. J. Fischer ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 181 Cancer Juliet McMullin ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 251 Affect Theory and the Empirical Danilyn Rutherford ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 285 Where Have All the Peasants Gone? Susana Narotzky ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 301 Scripting the Folk: History, Folklore, and the Imagination of Place in Bengal Roma Chatterji ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 377 Reproductive Tourism: Through the Anthropological “Reproscope” Michal Rachel Nahman ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 417 Contents vii Design and Anthropology Keith M. Murphy ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 433 Unfree Labor Filipe Calvão ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 451 Time as Technique Laura Bear ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 487 Indexes Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2016.45:451-467. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by 80.109.117.108 on 11/02/16. For personal use only. Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 36–45 ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 503 Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 36–45 ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 507 Errata An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/anthro viii Contents