Showing posts sorted by date for query ANARCHIST. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query ANARCHIST. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, September 29, 2026

 

Sage launches Disinformation: An Interdisciplinary Journal




SAGE






Sage announces the launch of Disinformation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, a new peer-reviewed, open access journal examining how disinformation is produced, circulated, and understood across societies and cultures.

Launching in January 2027 and now accepting submissions, the journal welcomes contributions exploring disinformation in contexts including politics and elections, war and conflict, science, health, climate change, and the environment. Alongside theoretical, empirical, and methodological research, Disinformation will feature an Interventions and Commentary section, creating a forum for timely dialogue between researchers and practitioners working to understand and address disinformation.

An editorial collective will lead the journal, with a different member serving as managing editor each year. Together, the collective brings global expertise spanning digital media, communication, climate communication, political communication, rhetoric, and disinformation studies.

“We’re excited to launch Disinformation: An Interdisciplinary Journal at a moment when disinformation is more rife than ever, and when the term itself is hotly contested,” said the Editors. “The journal will be a forum both for studying how disinformation spreads, and for critically interrogating what gets labelled as disinformation, and why.”

"Disinformation is a pressing challenge for societies around the world, and understanding it requires perspectives from across disciplines and cultures," said Rachel Hunter, Vice President, Journals Editorial at Sage. "The launch of Disinformation: An Interdisciplinary Journal is timely as the need for rigorous research and debate in this area is more important than ever. Through international and interdisciplinary collaboration, this journal will help deepen understanding of disinformation, its impact and how societies respond to it."

The journal encourages international perspectives and contributions by researchers from the Global South. Its editorial collective comprises Niki Cheong, King's College London, UK; Gabi Mocatta, University of Tasmania, Australia; Raquel Recuero, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Brazil; Felipe Bonow Soares, University of the Arts London, UK; and Robert Topinka, Birkbeck, University of London, UK.

Disinformation will be published through Sage Community Open Access, an initiative that enables selected journals to publish with no fees for authors and no barriers for readers - one of several flexible publishing options Sage offers to support sustainable and accessible research.

More information about Disinformation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, including submission guidelines, is available on the journal page.

###

Sage is a global academic publisher of books, journals, and library resources with a growing range of technologies to enable discovery, access, and engagement. Believing that research and education are critical in shaping society, 24-year-old Sara Miller McCune founded Sage in 1965. Today, we are controlled by a group of trustees charged with maintaining our independence and mission indefinitely.  

Our guaranteed independence means we’re free to: 

  • Do more – supporting an equitable academic future, furthering disciplines that drive social change, and helping social and behavioral science make an impact 
  • Work together – building lasting relationships, championing diverse perspectives, and co-creating resources to transform teaching and learning 
  • Think long-term – experimenting, taking risks, and investing in new ideas.


DFG to fund nine new research units





Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft





The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) is establishing nine new Research Units. This was decided by the DFG Joint Committee on the recommendation of the Senate. The new Research Units will receive total funding of approximately €40 million, including a 22-percent programme allowance for indirect project costs. In addition to these nine newly created Research Units, the decision was made to extend six Research Units and one Centre for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences for an additional funding period. One of the newly approved Research Units is being funded jointly with the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) under the D-A-CH cooperation. 

 

Research Units enable researchers to pursue current and pressing issues in their areas of research and take innovative directions in their work. They are funded for up to eight years. In total, the DFG is currently funding 191 Research Units, seven Clinical Research Units and 15 Centres for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences. Clinical Research Units are also characterised by the close connection between research and clinical work, while Centres for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences are specifically tailored to forms of work in the humanities and social sciences.

 

The new research networks in detail
(in alphabetical order of the spokespersons’ higher education institutions)

Swamps, peatlands and marshes: wetlands were long regarded as sinister, difficult-to-control spaces that needed to be cultivated. Today, we know that these boundary and transition zones perform vital functions: wetlands sequester carbon dioxide and protect coastlines, as well as filtering and purifying water. Working within the environmental humanities, the Research Unit Thinking with wetlands. Histories from the quaking zone 1630-1997 takes a fresh look at the ambivalent experiences and often contested visions and terminology that have shaped the relationship between people and wetlands. Its overall aim is to shed light on how people in Central and Western Europe lived and thought with swamps, regarded them as a source of philosophical inspiration – and began campaigning for their protection at an early stage. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Simone Müller, University of Augsburg)

 

The Research Unit examines Media Practices of Contradicting in Networked Publics as a relational, dynamic form of communication in which people who have previously been disadvantaged socially, economically or culturally raise their voices in a democratic context against a form of dominance they perceive to be hegemonic. In addition to discursive practices of dissent in which media convey particular content, the unit will focus on the digital conditions that have significantly changed such practices, including social media, for example. It will also examine in greater detail material and creative practices in which media themselves – as organisations, infrastructures and technologies – become the object of dissent. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Margreth Lünenborg, FU Berlin)

 

Information is transmitted through the nervous system in different ways. In addition to conventional, highly targeted communication between nerve cells at synapses, messenger substances can also exert effects beyond the boundaries of individual synapses. Recent research is revealing in ever greater detail the diversity and dynamic nature of the interplay between these different signalling pathways. This is the focus of the Research Unit Inside and outside the synapse: Challenging dogmas of synaptic signalling and neuromodulation. It seeks to develop a deeper understanding of neuronal communication pathways and determine how adaptable they are. The unit will investigate how nervous tissue filters and translates information and converts it into activity. The aim is to review established ideas about synaptic transmission and broaden our understanding of information processing in the brain. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Christian Henneberger, University of Bonn)

 

The German Climate Change Act has set the ambitious goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to such an extent that Germany will be completely climate-neutral by 2045. Achieving this requires a clear, legally binding roadmap setting out the fundamental changes that must be made to the economy and society. At the same time, the question of how legislation can bring about this transformation is itself changing the legal system. This is the central premise of the Research Unit Transformative climate law: space – time – society. It will examine the economic, environmental and social changes involved in the transition to climate neutrality in the dimensions that are crucial to this process, thereby identifying the new framework required for effective, future-oriented and therefore sustainable climate law. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Claudio Franzius, University of Bremen)

 

Humans are the only known species to process food using heat. Heat-treated foods are easier to digest, but they also cause metabolic and physiological changes, for example due to altered lipid compounds in dietary fats. To date, little is known about the bioactivity of these compounds. The Research Unit Heat-treated dietary lipids (HTDL): chemistry, physiology, evolutionary impact will investigate whether HTDL leads to changes in lipidomes – the complete set of lipids – and in the membrane and biophysical properties of cells, neurometabolic processes, metabolic signalling pathways and reproductive processes, and whether these changes can alter the evolution of organisms that consume HTDL. The Research Unit is funded under the D-A-CH cooperation with the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Klaus Reinhardt, Dresden University of Technology)

 

In component design, iron-based shape-memory alloys offer potential new applications compared with established materials such as nickel-titanium alloys. To date, however, the various shape-memory effects have largely been considered and used separately. There is also no suitable alloy design that would allow such combined effects to be used systematically in applications. The Research Unit Combined effects in Fe-based shape memory alloys – Model-driven alloy design taking into account process-microstructure-property relationships aims to investigate these combined effects in depth, use model-driven alloy design to develop high-performance iron-based shape-memory alloys in a targeted manner, and gain a fundamental understanding of the relevant mechanisms. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr.-Ing. Thomas Niendorf, University of Kassel)

 

The Research Unit Beyond Crazy: Integrating Benefits into the Analysis of Conspiracy Beliefs asks what potential functions and benefits conspiracy beliefs may offer their adherents from the perspectives of communication, psychology and society. By investigating this systematically, the unit aims to gain a better understanding of the popularity and appeal of conspiracy theories. In doing so, it goes beyond previous research, which has focused almost exclusively on their negative consequences. This different perspective is to contribute to a more nuanced theoretical understanding of conspiracy beliefs and advance the methodological development of the field. The focus is on interdisciplinary approaches drawn from psychology and communication studies. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Roland Imhoff, University of Mainz)

 

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) is an autoimmune skin disease that manifests in various forms and can sometimes cause severe scarring. The permanent, visible skin damage and hair loss often associated with CLE can severely affect the day-to-day quality of life of those concerned. Despite its clinical relevance, no therapies have been approved for CLE other than treatment with glucocorticosteroids – commonly known as cortisone. At the same time, understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms remains incomplete at best, and the observable subtypes have not been adequately defined. The Research Unit Decipher the immunopathology of cutaneous lupus aims to address these issues and lay the foundations for new therapeutic approaches in the future. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Claudia Günther, University of Tübingen)

 

A problematic term coined during Donald Trump’s first presidency, “alternative facts” pose a serious threat to contemporary societies. The phenomenon itself is much older, however, and can be traced far back into the past. The Research Unit ‘Alternative Facts’ in the Sixteenth Century places the phenomenon in its historical context by focusing on the early modern period – an era that had a significant influence on Europe’s understanding of itself – and the transformation of the media that occurred at the time. It defines its key concept as a linguistic practice that challenges accepted standards of knowledge and deliberately seeks to undermine them through competing claims—for example in rhetoric, religion or politics—in order to obstruct dialogue, disrupt discourse, create uncertainty or stage particular narratives. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Regina Toepfer, University of Würzburg)

 

 

The research networks extended for a second funding period (in alphabetical order of the spokespersons’ higher education institutions and with references to the project descriptions in the DFG’s online database GEPRIS):

 

Research Unit Model-based determination of nonlinear properties of piezoceramics for high-power ultrasound applications II (NEPTUN) (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Andrea Walther, HU Berlin)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/444955436/2

 

Research Unit Bioinspired Oxidation Catalysis with Iron Complexes (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Thorsten Glaser, University of Bielefeld)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/445916766/2

 

Research Unit Functional surfaces through adiabatic high-speed processes: Microstructure, mechanisms and model development – FUNDAM³ENT (Spokesperson: Professor Dr.-Ing. Thomas Lampke, Chemnitz University of Technology)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/460484491/3

 

Research Unit Practices for referring to persons: usage-based approaches to personal, indefinite and demonstrative pronouns (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Wolfgang Imo, University of Hamburg)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/457855466/2

 

Centre for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences Universalism and Particularism in European Contemporary History (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Kiran Patel, LMU Munich)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/449772505/2

 

 

Research Unit iMAGO – Personalized diagnostics for the treatment of obesity (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Martin Klingenspor, TU Munich)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/455422993/2

 

Research Unit Learning to Sense (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Michael Möller, University of Siegen)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/459284860/2

 

Further Information

 

Media contact:

DFG Press and Public Relations, Tel. +49 228 885-2109, presse@dfg.de

 

Further information is also available from the network spokespersons.

 

Contact at the DFG Head Office:

Patrizia Micalizzi, Quality and Programme Management, Tel. +49 228 885-2301, patrizia.micalizzi@dfg.de

 

Links to DFG Research Units:

www.dfg.de/for/en

www.dfg.de/kfo/en

www.dfg.de/advanced_studies_centre


Sage becomes new home of Lawrence & Wishart journals



SAGE





Sage will become the new publisher of the Lawrence & Wishart journals portfolio, a collection of longstanding journals that have helped shape debate in politics, culture, education and social change. Following the planned closure of Lawrence & Wishart’s journals publishing arm, Sage has acquired four titles and entered into a publishing agreement for a fifth.

The journals will begin publishing with Sage from 2027, and are now accepting submissions:

  • New Formations has been a pioneer of interdisciplinary research since the 1980s, with a core focus on work which explores the uses of cultural theory for the analysis of political and social issues.

  • Soundings publishes informed writing on contemporary political and cultural debates, broadly based on the traditions of the New Left and Gramscian tradition.

  • Anarchist Studies is an international inter- and multi-disciplinary journal which, for over 20 years, has published research into the history, culture, theory and practice of anarchism.

  • Twentieth Century Communism provides an international forum for the latest research and debate on communism and its political, social, and cultural influence.

  • FORUM: For comprehensive education publishes critical analysis of UK education policy and has provided a platform for debate about comprehensive and state-provided education for more than 60 years. It will publish with Sage under a lease arrangement.

“Lawrence & Wishart is very proud of the small collection of journals we have put together over the years, but we recognise that the time has come for them to move on to a bigger publisher, better able to look after them in the challenging landscape of twenty-first century journals publishing,” said Sally Davidson, L&W Director. “We are very pleased that our journals are now passing into the safe hands of Sage, a publisher which shares our values and concern for ethical scholarship.”

“These journals have made important contributions to scholarship in the social sciences and humanities, publishing research and writing that informs understanding of society and social change,” said Caroline Porter, Vice President of Journals Editorial at Sage. “We look forward to supporting each journal's continued success and connecting their work with readers around the world.”

All five journals’ editorial leadership and aims and scope will remain in place, ensuring continuity for existing communities while creating opportunities for future growth and wider dissemination. More information about the journals and submission guidelines are available on the journals’ webpages.

# # #

About Lawrence & Wishart

Lawrence & Wishart has been publishing critical left texts on politics and culture since 1936. It aims to create a space where people can think together, challenge political ‘common sense’ and explore new possibilities. We’re interested in critiques of capitalism, and alternatives to systems that prioritise profit over people and the planet. Our commissioning seeks to contribute to a critical understanding of the current moment and the forces that have shaped it, through a focus on the intersections of class, race, gender, LGBTQ+ issues, climate justice and colonialism. Through books, journals and events we foster curiosity for, and engagement in, conversations around pluralism and solidarity.

About Sage

Sage is a global academic publisher of books, journals, and library resources with a growing range of technologies to enable discovery, access, and engagement. Believing that research and education are critical in shaping society, 24-year-old Sara Miller McCune founded Sage in 1965. Today, we are controlled by a group of trustees charged with maintaining our independence and mission indefinitely.  

Our guaranteed independence means we’re free to: 

  • Do more – supporting an equitable academic future, furthering disciplines that drive social change, and helping social and behavioral science make an impact 

  • Work together – building lasting relationships, championing diverse perspectives, and co-creating resources to transform teaching and learning 

  • Think long-term – experimenting, taking risks, and investing in new ideas


Wednesday, September 16, 2026

NATURE IS AN ANARCHIST

Rich neighborhoods more likely to burn


Wealthy enclaves at higher risk, but bounce back faster


University of California - Riverside

Burning home

image: 

Firefighters battling a blaze that consumed a house.

view more 

Credit: Ada Be





Frequently located on hillsides and in canyons surrounded by wildlands, rich neighborhoods are more likely to catch fire. However, a UC Riverside study shows they are also likely to recover faster than lower-income areas.

Unlike most fire research focused on wildland blazes or single catastrophic events, the UCR study represents one of the most comprehensive looks at the unique dynamics of fires in cities. 

Published in the journal NPJ Urban Sustainability, the study examined 141 fires across the U.S. going back to 1984. Combining these records with population, development, climate, and demographic data offered a more in-depth understanding of the lead-up to and aftermath of fires. 

The results show that risk of fire in cities is not distributed randomly. “These urban fires consistently occur in suburban, high-income, owner-occupied development,” said UCR postdoctoral researcher in urban ecology and study author Dion Kucera. “That hasn’t changed in more than 40 years.”

According to the study, neighborhoods with substantially higher median incomes had about 30% higher odds of fire exposure.

One of the study's most critical findings for city planners is what precedes these fires. It’s not long-term drought, but rather a short, intense drying of the environment in the six months prior. “That suggests three- to six-month moisture measures may be more important for city managers trying to identify periods of heightened risk, rather than longer-term drought assessments,” Kucera said.

Once a neighborhood burns, recovery can be slow. The researchers measured whether vegetation and surface temperatures returned to their pre-fire ranges during the following five years. For most places, they did not.

About 78% of severely burned areas failed to return to their pre-fire temperature range within five years, while 73% failed to recover their previous level of greenness. In general, burned urban areas became hotter and less green, with the effects persisting for years.

Income emerged as an important factor in recovery as well. Higher-income neighborhoods tended to recover their pre-fire temperatures more quickly and experienced smaller losses in vegetation.

The results suggest that understanding urban fire requires looking at the social characteristics of the places that burn. With these factors in mind, the researchers found important regional differences. Nationally, neighborhoods with higher proportions of white residents had lower odds of experiencing fire. In California and other dry parts of the West, however, that relationship was reversed, with white as well as Black populations experiencing greater odds of exposure.

The study also found that urban fires behave differently from fires in wildlands. While wildland fires have been growing both larger and more frequent, the number of fires reaching urban areas did not show a clear increase over the study period.

There was, however, evidence that the amount of urban land burned is increasing. The trend was heavily influenced by especially destructive fire years, suggesting that extreme years may be driving greater losses even without an increase in the overall number of fires.

These findings could have implications for how communities prepare for fire and how insurers assess risk, though the study did not examine insurance markets directly. Kucera said additional research should explore those questions.

More broadly, he argues that scientists need to stop treating fires that enter developed areas as simply extensions of wildland fire. Cities have their own patterns of exposure and recovery, shaped by where people build, who lives there, and the resources they have available.

“The urban fire problem isn’t just structured by climate like it is in wildlands,” Kucera said. “Adapting to the growing intensity of urban fires requires looking beyond the forest and into the social fabric of our cities.”

Saturday, September 12, 2026

The Mexican left’s debates on race and nation

Insurgents somewhere south of Mexico City, likely the state of Morelos, accompanied by their wives: Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

First published at Mexico Solidarity Project.

When British-Mexican Tony Wood talks about the debates of the Mexican left in the 1920s and 30s, some of the questions sound familiar. For example, when a more progressive but still capitalist government is in power, as in Mexico after its 1910 revolution, some in the broad left condemned it, others supported it as a positive step. This debate is occurring again today. Is the Morena party a revolutionary force, a “4th transformation”? Or is it still fundamentally a capitalist party like the old PRI, just throwing the poor a bigger bone?

In the 20s and 30s, another debate arose as Mexican socialists considered how their post-revolutionary nation should relate to Indigenous peoples. The Russians led the international communist movement, and, in 1928, US communist Harry Haywood put forward his thesis that African Americans constituted a nation in the southern US states where the majority of African Americans lived; this was accepted as the Comintern’s official position. This sparked debate in Mexico about whether Indigenous peoples should constitute their own nations separate from Mexico, be merged into the Mexican mainstream or be accorded some level of autonomy.

While the questions discussed were similar, the debates in Mexico and the US emphasized different issues due to different histories of national formation. In Mexico, Afro-Mexicans were not included in the debate about nations within a nation, while in the US, the discussion was only about African Americans, not Native Americans.

Today, with the right wing sweeping the globe, discussion among international radicals is needed more than ever. Tony Wood reminds us that one nation’s left cannot insist, as the Russians once did, that they have the answers that fit every other nation. Understanding the different frames that arise out of local conditions can help us achieve the unity that the left sorely needs.

Wood’s research focuses on the Latin American radical left in the interwar period. His most recent book, titled Radical Sovereignty: Debating Race, Nation, and Empire in Interwar Latin America, appeared in 2026. He was deputy editor of New Left Review from 2007 to 2014 and is a member of its editorial board. He has written on a range of subjects for the London Review of Books, n+1, The Nation and the Guardian (UK), among other outlets.

The following interview with Wood was conducted by Meizhu Lui.

The 20s and 30s were a time of political ferment around the world, including Latin America. Why did Mexico City become the “transnational hub” for these discussions?

In a time of political ferment, with ordinary people around the world rising up against oppressive societies, the 1910 Mexican Revolution was a momentous event for Latin America. It galvanized people across borders as an example of how to break the old oligarchies’ power. Beginning in Argentina, students began fighting for university reform, labor movements were growing, anarchist and then socialist and communist currents arose along with other progressive anti-imperialist thinking and organizing. Although not the only place where radicals gathered to debate and strategize, Mexico was the one place in Latin America where a new government looked somewhat favorably on radical currents.

After Russia’s 1917 revolution, communist parties sprang up across Latin America, including in Mexico in 1919. Russia was positioning itself to lead Marxist movements all over the world, and new parties had to consider how much to adopt Russian models versus how much to follow local precedents.

The Mexican left debated whether the state arising from the Mexican Revolution was actually a progressive or left entity. Some saw its progressive potential and defended its gains; others said it’s just another bourgeois state, and we want nothing to do with it; we should overthrow it too. The Russians eventually took the latter view, and the Mexican Communist Party entered a sectarian phase, with some in the party advocating armed insurrection.

Who were involved in these debates about the shape of Mexico’s future?

Not just educated political theorists but also industrial workers, railway workers and artisans were involved. And artists! — like Communist Party activists and muralists Diego Rivera and David Siquieros. Many large peasant leagues existed and also initially affiliated with the communists. But we shouldn’t overstate the Communist Party’s influence. At the end of the 1920s, the peasant leagues split from them because they saw the Mexican state, with all its flaws, as the best guarantee of keeping what they had gained so far.

Mexico has always had its own national-popular tradition, which at times overlapped with socialist and communist agendas. The socialists and communists had to decide whether to support popular movements because their demands moved the country in a good direction or to oppose them because their victories stopped short of socialism.

For us researchers, it’s hard to capture the contributions of those who didn’t write down their ideas, but the agendas of social movements often show us what they were thinking. Peasants and workers were practical and strategic. The 20s and 30s opened a window for long-desired demands — finally the government might actually fulfill them.

As an example, Zapata’s 1911 Plan de Ayala galvanized peasants, even though its land reform proposal was pretty modest. During that revolution against Porfirio Diaz, the Plan asked for the return of lands “usurped” by big haciendas and for the expropriation of one-third only of the land of Diaz supporters. In 1911, Zapata probably understood there was a limit to what campesinos could demand. But by 1917, the terrain had shifted, and the constitution nationalized all the land — much more radical than what Zapata asked for!

What was the involvement of Indigenous peoples?

In that period, the Indigenous generally didn’t couch their demands in terms of ethnic identity but more on locality — x village wants farm credits and seeds. You can infer they were Indigenous, but they aren’t saying “we as Indigenous people…” The language of class — we’re campesinos or we’re proletarians — was much more prominent.

Not until the late 30s, when the progressive Cárdenas government called for congresses of individual Indigenous groups, like the Mixtecs or the Chontal Maya, did many groups form organizations in response. But even then, their demands were like any other campesino demands — running water, seeds, loans, education. Identifying as Indigenous was simply a tool in their toolbox for getting their demands met. If it helped to say they were Indigenous, then good — if not, they tended not to use it.

Was there interest in the question of national self-determination?

Stalin’s definition of a nation dominated on the left, and one of his criteria was inhabiting a defined shared territory. Indigenous peoples themselves did not participate much in the nationhood debate. Mostly Marxist circles theorized about it, both inside the Mexican Communist Party in the early 30s and then outside it in the late 30s among leftist ethnographers. The Communist Party initially thought that backing self-determination would be supported by Indigenous groups, but it didn’t work out that way. In 1935, the Party dropped the policy.

Afro-Mexicans were a relatively small, more dispersed population, and they didn’t share a distinct language, so their status wasn’t part of the conversation. One of the first Mexican presidents in the 1820s, Vicente Guerrero, was Afro-Mexican, but at the time he would have been described using other categories, so his racial identity would have been framed very differently from how it is today.

What did the left mean by “self-determination”? The ideas ranged from creating something like a new municipality and remaining part of Mexico to forming a separate sovereign state independent of Mexico. A basic question throughout Mexican history has been about how the state should relate to Indigenous peoples. Two main responses emerged. One was assimilationist, which was to absorb Indigenous people into a mestizo population — the mainstream view for most of the 20th century. As President Cárdenas said in 1940, the problem is not to keep the “indian indian,” but to “mexicanize” the indian.

But in the 1930s, a pluralist response developed that declared that Mexico is a country made up of many nations, and they all have the right to maintain their distinctiveness within the whole. After the 30s, the separate nations idea disappears, replaced by the idea of greater political autonomy within Mexico.

Did those ideas reverberate up to the present?

I never found a direct through-line from the 20s and 30s to the debates of the late 60s. It’s more like there was a similar framing of the problem in two different historical moments. As I’ve discovered, groups like the campesinos have the same demands over time, even over centuries — but find different language in different historical movements, depending on what they deem as strategically possible.

In the debates about separate nations within the nation, participants also took into account that a Latin American country isn’t the same as Russia or the US. Breaking them up into smaller nation-states could make them more vulnerable to colonization by an imperialist country.

What actual reforms were passed?

In 1992 and 2001, Mexico passed constitutional reforms that support Indigenous people’s right to “free determination,” not “self-determination,” and that describe the nation as “pluricultural,” not “plurinational.” In other words, the state doesn’t recognize indigenous “nations” — it permits them their own cultural practices but no independence from the economic and legal structures of the state.

In 2025, under the new Morena government, a constitutional reform gave indigenous and Afro-Mexicans the authority to govern their own internal affairs. Now for the first time, an Indigenous person not only sits on the Supreme Court but is also its Chief Justice. In this historical moment Mexico’s Indigenous peoples are finding opportunities to couch longstanding demands in new language and with stronger governmental support.

AMLO’s actions on behalf of Indigenous peoples were mostly practical and strategic; sometimes he aimed for quite different goals that happened to benefit some Indigenous peoples. For example, he invested heavily in the infrastructure of Mexico’s southern regions, its most underdeveloped and poor area, but without saying, “This is to address Indigenous issues.” Though posed as more of an issue of regional development, the resulting economic growth benefited many Indigenous communities.

I think my key observation is that Mexico and Latin America use different frames and categories than the United States, and at the same time, their frames, the language of their demands, and even their identities are not fixed over time even in the same places.