Call for papers for the Dossier “Patrimonies in dispute: agendas, agents and patrimonial agency”
Anthropological literature on heritage and museums has grown in volume and thematic diversity in recent years. This growth has implied significant changes in the theoretical models adopted to analyse heritage assets and their processes of patrimonialization. Based on anthropology, a renewed intellectual investment has taken on the notion of difference as a central category for debates on heritage today. Regina Abreu (2015) has dealt with this process of expanding heritage through what she has called the “patrimonialization of differences” (Abreu, 2015). L'Estoile (2022), in a recent review of trends in this field of study, evaluates that the process of “patrimonialization of differences” has triggered a new research agenda in the heritage debate, anchored in what he called the “differentiation of heritages” (L'Estoile, 2022).
This “differentiation of heritage” has been expressed in a mosaic of new heritage repertoires: Afro-Brazilian heritage, indigenous heritage, urban heritage, LGBTQIAPN+ heritage, indigenous museums, memorial museums and community museums. These are the result of forms of agency by collectives whose bodies, practices and memories are marked by absence from hegemonic heritage narratives. The complexification of the arena of disputes in the field of heritage has not only broadened the “vocabulary of heritage” (Gonçalves, 2012), but has also led researchers to interact with other fields of knowledge and critical theories, such as decolonial theories, feminist criticism, queer theory and intersectionalities. In this scenario, perspectives of analysis, such as the decolonial, have taken on a strategic operational character in the grammar of struggles that these collectives have been operating. New forms of memory have been demanded from the perspective of denouncing the dangers of the “single history”, as Adichie (2009) puts it. In fact, memory has become an important battleground for understanding contemporary societies.
The emergence of these new memory supports is part of what Sodaro (2019) defined as the “memory boom”. For this author, the 20th century saw a substantial change in the paradigm of memorialization. While in the 19th century, the interest in memory was related to the consecration of the nation-state (with its white, Catholic and cisheteronormative features), in the following century the processes of remembrance carried a sense of “settling accounts” with a past marked by violence and forms of oppression (Sodaro, 2019). It makes sense, then, to see the significant growth in recent years of archives, places of memory and museums referring to complaints of human rights violations as part of this new context.
According to Santos (2021), in Brazil, this movement seems to have taken shape after the end of the military dictatorship and the resumption of the democratic regime. In analyzing the trajectory of these memory policies, the author assesses the relationship between the Brazilian state and the construction of memory in the post-dictatorship period as conflictual. The tensions between different sectors of the government, especially the military, in carrying out actions to “unearth the past” impose important limits on the effectiveness of these policies. It is also important to highlight the absence of historically marginalized groups such as indigenous people, peasants and LGBTQIAPN+ in the reparation processes and in participating in the construction of these actions. All these conflicts have become even more intense with the rise of ultra-conservative discourses and practices such as those that ensured Jair Bolsonaro's victory at the polls in 2018.
The strategies of “falsifying the past” operated by these discourses have accentuated the need to deepen the relationship between memory, heritage and citizenship. In this context, remembering the past has become a strategic political strategy for historically silenced collectives. The disputes against oblivion have taken the form of a struggle for justice (Yerushalmi, 1996 apud Santos, 2021). It is from this context that we see the need to reflect on the different agendas, agents and agency strategies involved in contesting canonical heritage narratives. We invite articles for this dossier that, based on ethnographic approaches, help to add to reflections on insurgent and uncomfortable heritage, counter-memories and sensitive memories, in order to promote a productive debate on heritage, human rights and the exercise of citizenship.
References:
ABREU, Regina. A patrimonialização das diferenças e os novos sujeitos de direito coletivo no Brasil. In: TARDY, Céline; DODEBEI (org.). Memória e novos patrimônios. Brasil: OpenEdition Press, 2015. p. 67-93.
GONÇALVES, José Reginaldo Santos. As transformações do patrimônio: da retórica da perda à reconstrução permanente. In: TAMASO, Izabela; LIMA FILHO, Manuel Ferreira (org.). Antropologia e Patrimônio Cultural: trajetórias e conceitos. Brasília: ABA, 2012. p. 59-74.
L’ESTOILE, Benoît de. Trinta anos de patrimônios e museus no Brasil: fragmentos de memórias subjetivas. In: CAVIGNAC, Julie; ABREU; Regina; VASSALLO, Simone (org.). Patrimônios e museus: inventando futuros. Brasília: ABA Publicações; Natal: EDUFRN, 2022. p. 11-33.
SODARO, Amy. Museus memoriais: a emergência de um novo modelo de museu. Revista PerCursos, Florianópolis, v. 20, n. 44, p. 207-231, 2019.
SANTOS, Myrian Sepúlveda dos. Memória e ditadura militar: lembrando as violações de direitos humanos. Tempo Social, São Paulo, v. 33, n. 02, p. 289-309, 2021.
Considering the evaluation criteria imposed on scientific journals, 50% of the articles may be selected from doctoral students; the other articles must be authored by at least one doctor. All articles submitted will be blindly assessed by external referees, in line with the journal’s policy. In order to take account of the diversity of theoretical and methodological approaches to the different empirical fields and issues to be debated, articles will preferably be accepted from the fields of Anthropology and Social Sciences, observing the parameters of exogeny in relation to UFF.
Organizers: Thiago Soliva (UFSB/Brazil), Patrícia Lânes (UERJ/Brazil) and Milton Ribeiro (UEPA/Brazil).
Extended deadline: November 3, 2025.
NOTE: As we have more than one open call, it is mandatory to indicate in the ‘Comments to editors’ field that the submission is for the “Patrimonies in dispute” Dossier.
Contributions can be sent until November 3, 2025 via the journal’s electronic system: https://periodicos.uff.br/antropolitica/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions
