Stephanie Martens — Conviviality and its others for a…

30 published claims from this book.

• An ostensibly singular concept can lull analysts into overgeneralization.
• Assuming shared identity permits recognizing differences across experience.
• Attending to self and others inseparably means subjects do not precede their relating.
• capacities for living with difference arise through situated relations, not abstract categories
• Care is ongoing attentive tinkering amid complex ambivalence, not straightforward apprehension.
• Convivial care work resists being replicated because it is unpaid.
• Convivial relations can build deep understanding without assuming full translatability
• Convivial relations carry radical openness that undermines fixed and reified identity.
• Convivial trust is a collective accomplishment built from many small ways of relating.
• Conviviality’s transformative force lies in stepping beyond bounded identities, not in inhabiting them.
• Cross-cultural dialogue over motherhood made personal change thinkable.
• Difference is relational, embedded in power, and generative.
• Emphasizing or de-emphasizing social boundaries each yields distinct relational possibilities
• Even universalist concepts like conviviality silently depend on a Western social imaginary.
• Everyday cohabitation differs in kind from multiculturalism’s model of distinct groups.
• Everyday convivial civility can both preserve difference and transform identities.
• Foregrounding hybridity and fluidity may close off as many practical options as it opens.
• Genuine friendship replaces one-directional service with mutual transformation.
• Indigenous scholars treat refusal and incommensurability as political correctives against oppressive forms of understanding
• Mainstream conviviality theory assumes negotiation dissolves fixed identities
• Multicultural policy regimes pressure minorities into presenting themselves as bounded distinct cultures.
• No single characterization of conviviality should define the politics of living with difference.
• People can relate well across difference without fully understanding each other.
• Playful boundary-testing made the male ethnographer the object of the café’s conviviality.
• Researchers should ask which differences matter before defining difference itself.
• Shared parenting burdens spark cross-cultural conviviality in diverse communities.
• Specific relational modes offer more analytic traction than generalized conviviality.
• The convivial turn emerged against the pessimism of both policy debates and ethnicity scholarship.
• Transformation happens by assuming shared categories rather than questioning them.
• Universalising models of conviviality inevitably exclude those who cannot embody them.