This article puts into dialogue anthropological discussions on violence, infrastructures, food systems, and affect to argue for the importance of understanding the role of affective responses in shaping not only subjectivities or experiences of individuals but also the networks, infrastructures, and institutions in which they participate. Set in contemporary Mexico, where concern about criminal violence has become increasingly widespread, the article analyzes ethnographically how different actors in Mexico City's wholesale food market narrate and respond to contexts of violence. It argues that a cluster of affects born out of a sense of insecurity—fear, uncertainty, distrust—come to shape people's everyday (im)mobilities and that these shifting mobilities and arrangements are in fact constitutive of Mexico City's food system. Attention to the affective dimensions of infrastructure entails humanizing the study of material circulation, placing sensations, perceptions, and experiences front and center. This can help to illuminate how infrastructures that appear to be stable and continuous in fact experience internal transformations and rearrangements in new political, economic, and social contexts.
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10208617
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of anthropological archaeology
- Volume:
- 61
- ISSN:
- 0278-4165
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 101263
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect domestic violence? We might expect that the most marginalized victims experienced the most dramatic upticks in violence during the pandemic. However, through life-story interviews, I found that survivors who were enduring abuse, poverty, housing insecurity, and systems involvement pre-COVID did not suffer worse abuse during the pandemic. For multiply marginalized survivors, COVID did not produce more violence directly, but instead worsened the social contexts in which they already experienced violence and related problems, setting them up for future instability. The small group of survivors in this study who did experience COVID as a novel period of violence were likely to be middle-class and better-resourced. To explain these findings, I suggest moving away from a model of crisis as “external stressor.” I offer the concept “clustered vulnerabilities” to explain how—rather than entering in as “shock”—crisis amplifies existing structural problems: social vulnerabilities pile up, becoming denser and more difficult to manage. “Clustered vulnerabilities” better explains crisis in the lives of marginalized people and is useful for analyzing the relationship between chronic disadvantage and crisis across cases.
-
Evidence from victim service providers suggests the COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in family violence. However, empirical evidence has been limited. This study uses novel survey data to investigate the occurrence of family violence during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Data come from the second wave of the Assessing the Social Consequences of COVID-19 study, an online non-probability sample collected in April and May 2020. Family violence is measured using four variables: any violence, physical violence, verbal abuse, and restricted access. The authors use logistic regression and KHB decomposition to examine the prevalence of family violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that sexual minorities, in particular bisexual people, experienced higher rates of family violence than heterosexual respondents. Women were the only group to report an increase in the frequency of family violence. Household income loss is associated with the incidence of verbal violence. Our findings demonstrate the importance of expanding victim services to address the additional barriers victims face within the pandemic context and beyond, including broad contexts of social isolation and financial precarity experienced by individuals at risk of family violence.more » « less
-
more » « less
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a pervasive public health crisis that impacts individuals across the gender spectrum. Traditionally, IPV is conceptualized through a gendered lens, with men as the perpetrators and women as the victims. The current study explored the association between perpetrator/victim sex, prosecutor gender role attitudes, and prosecutorial decision-making in a case of alleged IPV. We hypothesized that prosecutors with more traditional gender role attitudes would be more lenient, and this effect to be exacerbated in cases involving a female perpetrator. Criminal prosecutors across the United States ( N = 94) completed the Male Role Norms Inventory—Revised and read case materials describing the alleged IPV between a heterosexual couple (e.g., arrest report, medical records). The victim/perpetrator sex was manipulated to involve either a female- (male victim) or male- (female victim) perpetrated IPV case. Results indicate that gender role attitudes were not associated with prosecutorial decision-making. However, prosecutors perceived the violence as more serious and the perpetrator as more likely to reoffend when the perpetrator was male; further, they attributed more blame to the female victim. An interaction between perpetrator sex and prosecutor gender role attitudes indicates those with more traditional beliefs were more likely to blame the female (rather than male) victim. These data suggest extralegal factors related to the perpetrator (i.e., perpetrator sex), rather than prosecutor individual differences (i.e., gender role attitudes), are associated with prosecutor discretionary decision-making. In tandem with real-world disparities in the prosecution of IPV based on perpetrator sex, the current research stresses the importance of exploring a diversity of factors that account for these observed differences.
-
more » « less
Sexual minority, individuals who are not heterosexual, college students experience high rates of intimate partner violence (IPV), which is linked to a myriad of deleterious outcomes. However, little work has evaluated whether there are differences in IPV outcomes among sexual minority college students as compared to heterosexual college students. Further, the extent to which minority stress at the institutional and individual level relates to IPV outcomes among sexual minority students is understudied. As such, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate IPV outcomes in a large sample of undergraduate students attending 18 medium- to large-sized universities across the contiguous U.S. Results supported that sexual minority victims of IPV had more anxious and depressive symptoms than heterosexual victims of IPV but were not more likely to engage in hazardous drinking. Further, analyses supported that several campus-level (but not individual-level) indicators of minority stress moderated the relation between IPV victimization and negative outcomes among sexual minority students, such that the association between IPV and negative outcomes was stronger among students embedded in campuses with higher levels of minority stressors. Results support the critical importance of interventions addressing campus-level minority stressors to reduce deleterious IPV outcomes among sexual minority college student victims.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2020.101263
