Multiple crises, from the global financial crisis to COVID-19, the war in Ukraine to climate change, and the exigencies of new collective responses and understandings, have left a temporal stamp on our discipline. For this year’s conference, we suggest examining how the cascading challenges that occurred during the last hundred years fundamentally altered our discipline, research practices and the connection and connectivity with our worlds – how has anthropology aged, and how does the discipline reflect on its own ageing? Is it prepared to address the challenges posed by an ageing population?

Reflections on age and ageing have accompanied anthropology from its early developments and, to some extent, are emblematic of the initial divide between structural functionalism on one side of the pond and the culturalist approach on the other. On the one hand, seeing ageing as a series of statuses in a life course and the implications of these for the normative temporality of social reproduction (marriage, adulthood, eldership etc.) that is entailed in ritual and political obligations may have itself aged as a theory. Nonetheless, the pragmatics of the field, featuring towering figures, memorable mentors and recommendation letters, is structured around analogic elements. On the other hand, inquiring about the psychological dynamics within and between age categories and their cross-cultural comparison yielded evidence that the meanings of age were socially determined – yet it is the allegedly bio-temporal attributes of age that shape the new regimes of contractual labour in an academia full of young scholars, junior professors, senior researchers and faculty retirees. The ageing of anthropology and ageing in anthropology is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon, which, moreover, is occurring in the context of the ageing population of most industrialised countries. This conference seeks to delve into the dynamic relationship between the ageing of anthropology as a field and the ageing of individual anthropologists and their entourages within it.

The 1990s witnessed significant growth and development in European anthropology, marked by expanding programmes, establishing of new journals, the emergence of national and international associations (such as EASA, CASA, SASA), and a burgeoning number of graduates. This institutional growth has been further seconded by colonialism, the continuing reverberations of the baby boom, and the discipline’s geospatial expansion through mass air travel since the 1960s and, important for the Central and Eastern European region, the easing of individual travel and scholarly exchange possibilities after 1989. Relatedly, the period since the early 1990s saw the formation of national traditions and the renegotiation of roles, including discussions about the relationship between ‚Western‘ social anthropology and East European scholarly traditions.

This moment is now coming to a halt. This conjuncture was also historically contingent—closely linked to globalization, which, as recent events have highlighted, was facilitated by certain silences and global hegemonies. Many scholars built their careers during this phase of European anthropology’s ‘coming of age’ and identified with its promises. Subsequently, there have been the current crises and fissures (from Brexit to the rise of populism), shifting funding structures, reforms of social security systems and the projectification of the discipline, calls for decolonization, and new forms of professional engagement. These changes can be felt and often seen as representing not only a threat to the discipline, but also as a generational divide raising further questions about the future of anthropology.

This conference seeks to explore these temporalities and the interplay between disciplinary shifts, individual scholarly trajectories, and socio-economic changes. We invite contributions that engage with questions such as:

• How has anthropology responded to the challenges of ageing populations, including those posed to science and university education?
• What unique insights can anthropology provide into the experiences, social dynamics, and cultural meanings of ageing societies that distinguish it from other disciplines?
• How do epistemic communities and conversations age over time, and how does this affect creativity in knowledge production?
• How have our ethnographic conclusions and interpretations aged, considering new knowledge and perspectives?
• How do we engage with the classics of anthropology in an evolving disciplinary landscape?
• Is there a clash of generations within anthropology, and if so, what are the sources of tension?
• Is decolonization a generational challenge, and how can we ensure its successful implementation?

We welcome papers from diverse anthropological perspectives that reflect on these issues through theoretical, historical, or ethnographic lenses.

Formative crises of the last decades, such as the global financial crisis of 2008, the Europe’s ‘migrant crisis’ of 2015 (and the Belarus-EU border migration crisis of 2021-22), the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, or the accelerating climate catastrophe, have one thing in common: despite the different causes, and the different social, economic and political impacts of these crises, they re-animated the public debate on solidarity.

The multiplicity of crises we experience creates various inequalities, relationships and disconnections. Whether we understand solidarity as a normative affirmation of one’s commitments to others, reciprocity, or as a gift that creates and reproduces social bonds, solidarity has multiple forms. From expressions of intergenerational solidarity, development aid, social policies, and activities aimed at protecting the environment to extending rights and recognition to actors whose agency has long been overlooked. Embedded in recognition of interconnectedness, solidarity can disrupt or, conversely, make visible social boundaries, while, inversely, solidarity practices might re-establish boundaries and differentiations. Indeed, this is the point of contention when different solidarity logics come into conflict.

Solidarity does not only have to be an object of detached reflection. Solidarity can be the starting point of political concern for others, or of applied and engaged research. Solidarity is also an essential part of the field research experience. We find it in local and expert imaginations and practices as an expression of concern and care for others, for those we care about and those with whom we are connected. Solidarity thus refers to processes of articulation of moral commitment and its connection to those who are the object of our recognition.

At the conference, we would like to invite you to explore the different solidarity practices and logics:

• How is solidarity constructed/enacted/performed, and why?
• What forms of solidarities across socio-material contexts does ethnography capture?
• How does the notion of solidarity reflect ideas of social, political and economic order?
• How has the concept of solidarity influenced theoretical thinking in the social sciences?
• What manifestations does solidarity take?
• How do different forms of solidarity transform thinking about core anthropological concepts?
• What are the interfaces of the concept of solidarity in contemporary anthropological practice? How do these solidarity positions intervene in research practice, and how do they transform the role of the researcher?

We invite proposals for thematic panels as well as individual papers that would relate to the central theme of the conference.