Response to the comments on “Building from heterogeneity: the decomposition and recomposition of the working class viewed from the ‘popular economy’ in Argentina”

  • María Inés Fernández-AlvarezEmail author
Forum Response

I would like to begin by thanking the inspiring comments about my text that raise a series of questions about the scope of the thesis that my statement argues: heterogenization as a challenge and drive for collective organization. Indeed, the heart of my argument is to point out the creative potential of the process of political experimentation that the CTEP carries out, including the ambiguities, contradictions, and intrinsic impasses to this process, which are necessary due to its very character of experimentation. As was underlined by Mariano Perelman in his comment following my previous work, this idea of experimentation is linked with how I understand politics as a living process whose result is not foreseen in advance but rather occurs over time. It is precisely its character of political experimentation and what it can contribute in relation to other scenarios which drives the reflection I propose: what can we learn based on the experience of the CTEP regarding the...



  1. Barchiesi, Franco. 2011. Precarious liberation: workers, the state, and contested social citizenship in postapartheid South Africa. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  2. Castronovo, Alioscia. 2018. ¡Costureros carajo! Trayectorias de lucha y autogestión en las economías populares argentinas. Una perspectiva etnografica desde Buenos Aires. Revista Iconos. pp: 119-139.
  3. Cavallero, Lucía. 2019. Modalidades de endeudamiento popular “Mujeres ante la crisis: ¿endeudarse para vivir?” Red de Género y Comercio -Asociación Civil Lola Mora Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires.
  4. Chena, Pablo Ignacio and Alexandre Roig. 2017. L’exploitation financière des secteurs populaires argentins, Revue de la régulation, 22 (Automn 2017).
  5. Das, Veena and Shalini Randeria. 2015. Politics of the urban poor: aesthetics, ethics, volatility, precarity. Current Anthropology 56 (11): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fernández-Alvarez, María Inés. 2017. La política afectada. Experiencia, trabajo y vida cotidiana en Brukman recuperada. Rosario: Prohistoria.Google Scholar
  7. Fernández-Alvarez, María Inés 2019a. “Having a name of one’s own, being a part of history”: temporalities of precarity and political subjectivities of popular economy workers in Argentina Dialectical Anthropology Vol. 43, N 1, pp. 61–76. Scholar
  8. Fernández-Alvarez, María Inés. 2019b. Relaciones de parentesco, corporalidad y afectos en la producción de lo común: reflexiones a partir de una etnografía con trabajadores de la economía popular en Argentina. Revista de Estudios Sociales. Número 70.
  9. Gago, Verónica. 2014. La razón neoliberal, economías barrocas y pragmática popular. Buenos Aires: Tinta Limón.Google Scholar
  10. Gago, Verónica and Alexandre Roig. 2019. Las finanzas y las cosas, en: El imperio de las finanzas. Deuda y desigualdad. Buenos Aires: Miño y Dávila.Google Scholar
  11. Guérin, Isabelle. 2014. Juggling with debt, social ties and values: the everyday use of microcredit in rural South India. Current Anthropology 55 (S9): S40–S50. Scholar
  12. Manzano, Virginia. 2013. La política en movimiento. In Movilizaciones colectivas y políticas estatales en la vida del Gran Buenos Aires. Rosario, Prohistoria Ed.Google Scholar
  13. Millar, Kathleen. 2014. The precarious present: wageless labor and disrupted life in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Cultural Anthropology 29 (1): 32–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Millar, Kathleen. 2015. Introduction: reading twenty-first-century capitalism through the lens of E.P. Thompson|. Focaal--Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 73 (2015): 3–11.Google Scholar
  15. Narotzky, Susana and Niko Besnier. 2014. Crisis, value, and hope: rethinking the economy. Current Anthropology 55 (S9): 4–16.Google Scholar
  16. Neilson, Brett and Ned Rossiter. 2008. Precarity as a political concept, or, Fordism as exception. Theory, Culture and Society 25 (7-8): 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pérez Orozco, Amalia. 2014. Subversión feminista de la economía. Aportes para un debate, Madrid: Traficantes de Sueños.Google Scholar
  18. Pacífico, Florencia. 2019. Casas, programas estatales y prácticas políticas colectivas Etnografía de experiencias cotidianas de mujeres titulares del Argentina Trabaja. Revista Runa Archivo para las ciencias del hombre 40(2). In press.Google Scholar
  19. Palomera, Jaime. 2013. How did finance capital infiltrate the world of the urban poor? Homeownership and social gragmentation in a Spanish neighborhood. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38 (1): 218–235. Scholar
  20. Saiag, Hadrien. Forthcoming. Financialization from the margins: notes on the incorporation of Rosario’s sub-proletariat into consumer credit (Argentina, 2009-2015). Focaal--Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology.Google Scholar
  21. Señorans, Dolores. 2019. No somos esclavos. La organización gremial de los trabajadores costureros. In Debates urgentes sobre las clases trabajadoras en Argentina, ed. Bajo Sospecha, 55–68. Cooperativa Callao: Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, Gavin. 2015. Through a class darkly, but then face to face: praxis through the lens of class. In Anthropologies of class. Power, practice and inequality, ed. James Carrier and Don Kalb, 72–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thompson, Edward P. 1965. The making of the English working class. London: Vintage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CONICET - Instituto de Ciencias AntropológicasUniversidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations