The researchers who are part of this dossier are members of the Working Group on the Anthropology of Communities, Futures and Utopias in Latin America, affiliated to the Latin American Anthropology Association (to), and the Research Network on Communities, Utopias and Futures (riocomun). The studies and reflections it contains are nourished by the discussions provoked by meetings and dialogues that have been going on for more than three years in the network. The texts compiled for this issue of Encartes show different historical and cultural contexts in different states of the country and abroad: Baja California, Jalisco, Michoacán, Veracruz, Chiapas; as well as in the Norpatagonia region of Argentina. This heterogeneity shows the group's interest in exposing different, perhaps not always new, possibilities to see utopias and community futures. Although we share theoretical and conceptual references, there is no homogeneity or unique vision in our studies. This diversity, we trust, favors the continuity of the discussion on the relevance of using categories such as hope, community and utopias for the deep understanding of the reality of Latin America.

This brief presentation does not intend to indicate the indisputable path to realize any utopia or desired future, but to expose criteria for discussion on the detailed and daily relationship between communities, utopias and futures. In the first part, I briefly review the presence of the utopian genre in this region of the world; in the second part, I present five problematic knots to reflect on utopias and the possibilities of social change; in the third part, I present each article in the dossier. Let us begin.

Was it always the community the utopia?

The literary proposal of Thomas More in 1516 (2010) takes us to the yes. In that no place (from the Greek -ou y -topia) the rules, justice, the government of all, the administration of resources and the distribution of wealth work because they are governed by a commitment to the common good, to be a "truly humane" society, Ernst Bloch would read a few centuries later. Aspiring to this quasi-harmonious model of life (Moro did not eliminate slavery or social inequality) became the utopia (with a European surname) dreamed of for the next five centuries.1 Since then, this non-existent non-place began to be located, not only imaginary but geographically, in concrete lands of the world, in the Caribbean islands or in the Antilles, in the tropical forests of Latin America, in the great pre-Hispanic cities or in the projects of communes or ejidos in the centuries of the Spanish conquest of the Americas. xix and xx. According to the essentialism with which he was observed -and still is-, utopia existed and was somewhere in the Americas, in the native societies of this part of the world.

In Moro's island Utopia, "the values or principles that govern social coexistence are never something pre-existent, natural and immutable, but always the result of a collective choice and, therefore, modifiable" (Krotz, 2020: 92). Utopia, in its literary sense and as a power of historical social change (Ainsa, 1999), was not born as an endemic flower in the middle of the jungle, it is a socially formed landscape, it is a territory in execution.

And as a territory it has a specific subject that occupies it, that feels, that gives meaning and practices around the way of life associated to the space, to its history or, better said, to its memory. Esteban Krotz points out, in the same cited text, that "memory can also trace the path towards human society even through failures" (2020: 94), and here it is essential to rescue two of those parameters of utopia: memory and failures. The first at least has two historical rivers from which to feed: the utopias that flourished in the literary imaginations of the 20th century, the utopias of the 20th century and the utopias of the 20th century. xv and later, traveling from European to Latin American thought: Republic of Plato; Utopia of Thomas More; The City of the Sun by Tommaso Campanella; News from nowhere by William Morris; In the dreamed land of the ideal by Pierre Quiroule; Our America by José Martí or The cosmic race by José Vasconcelos.2 To this we can add the consequent utopian social experiments in the coming centuries (utopian and anarchist socialisms, European, North American and Latin American).

To this second river, Krotz (2020) calls it "utopian flashes" in Latin America (p. 95), in which we find a memory of struggle -of domination as well- and an exercise of political demand to improve the living conditions of the indigenous population during and after colonization (I briefly mention Horacio Vasco de Quiroga's Ciudad-hospital; Bartolomé de las Casas' Verapaz in Chiapas; Juan Rossi's Colonia Socialista Cecilia in Paraná; the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua or the Zapatista uprising in Mexico).

Both streams have served to think of alternative ways of life to the current ones, especially to confront the management, reclusion, invisibilization and integration policies of the colonialist systems and independent states in Latin America.3 The good way of living or living well, as an intellectual and communitarian proposal, is directed in that contemporary liberating sense, in which more than traveling and moving geographically to reach utopia, it is an internal and temporal journey, vindicating past and local practices, with an ethnic and political identity axis, which challenges the cultural continuity of the global capital market.

About this return to the community, it is part of the memory generated by urban elites, local and international, who saw in all America a fertile land for the execution of utopian projects; traveling to America was "a journey in time, a trip to the future that each one would like to build individually or collectively. Soon, the 'New World' was also the place to imagine a new beginning to build perfect cities, enlightened kingdoms, alternative communities of political or religious inspiration" (Pro, 2024). That time travel reference is a criterion of utopia itself, following Erick Palomares: it is its temporal dimension, not so much geographical (Pro, Brenišínová and Ansótegui, 2021) and, incredible as it may seem, it remains a bias of memory, something like a chronological regime for reading and living human history (as alluded to by Reinhart Koselleck), which demonstrates in its nature, in its quality of utopian germ as chronic malaise.

On the one hand, the trip was a trip to the future, as Juan Pro says, a trip to what can be, to the dreamed space, to the perfect land to create that human society without the "mistakes" of the past. On the other hand, the journey to the Americas was experienced as a journey to the past, more so in the centuries that followed. xix, xx and even xxiWhen going to the indigenous, jungle, mountain and highland communities was to travel to that idyllic past, to that place where they still lived with good community practices, with that mechanical solidarity of which Émile Durkheim spoke.

As we shall see, memory, both imagined and bodily, is mixed through time and influences how subjects relate to their territories. This non-static and conflictive relationship conditions the future and territoriality as people face different ruptures or frictions with their community and, in this sense, with the utopia they are creating. It is therefore worth noting that every utopia brings with it its own dystopian germ, a scenario that, unlike utopia as fantasy and non-existence, is also part of everyday practices.

Failures. To fail is to carpet the road to the desired future. Failing, in terms of productivity, to reach the final goal is not a historical or social waste. The question of having tried produces an experience that contains, as Bloch announced, the germ of change. It is worth recalling here that illustrious phrase of Gaston Bachelard on alchemy and experience: "The lively awareness of hope is in itself a success" (Bachelard, 2000: 58). Utopias feed on past failures; that is, possible futures are shaped by what happened in the past, remembered as official memory or history, as well as by what did not happen and did not exist (past futures). In this sense, utopias in Latin America continue to be reconstituting past experiments that sought to modify reality, which, apart from being isolated cases or "flashes", are valuable obscured milestones that offer a whole range of utopian experiments specific to a region of the world. It should be noted that these realities that they seek to transform have as their backdrop - without being a homogeneous genesis, but sharing intercontinental structures and policies - the structural colonization of the freedoms of multiple peoples and communities, especially indigenous ones. It is no coincidence, therefore, that in this dossier most of the cases presented are of indigenous communities in dialogue (or disregarding one) with the State, dealing with historical structural inequalities and with vestiges of post-revolutionary indigenist policies.

So, the community is utopia. In two ways this theme seems quite attractive as a model of life and as an epistemic proposal. On the one hand, living in the community becomes that idyllic place, the utopia (the non-place) to which we will "return" as humanity to return to the harmonic practices of the past, to reconfigure our relationships centered on the mercantile and political to position them in reciprocity, solidarity and love. In its second aspect, the community as an ontological-epistemic proposal is not only a theoretical-methodological instrument to think of alternative forms of social coexistence, but a horizon of expectations that would coincide with the present experiences of indigenous populations that have lived with these experiences from a corporal memory; that is, strongly linked to individuals close to the present generations (great-grandparents, grandmothers, fathers, mothers, etc.).

However, this universalizing axiom must be criticized. If the community is the utopia (with decolonial surname) in the historical context of the geopolitical globalization of capitalism, then it also brings with it a dystopia in its modernist germ, a device or gene that is activated when the decisions of the subjects, individual and collective, are associating and preferring decisions that move them away from utopia. This situation is not surprising given that frictions, fragmentations and disagreements at the internal level in any community are part of daily life in them (Celentiano, 2005). So, if the community is the modern utopia, even if it has a pre-modern life as a backdrop, it has this duality that is not easily resolved: on the one hand, it is sustained by being a critique and resistance to the capitalist system and, at the same time, by being a distant dream, an idealization of the way of life that, in order to survive, requires both aspiring and negotiating traditions and identities.

So, how to achieve utopia in real time? Difficult task and, even so, humanity is not lacking in attempts to reach those "non-places", those earthly, political, economic and social paradises that would show the right way of living for all mankind. Tracing utopia, we consider in this dossier, implies a daily work rather than a distant horizon to be reached, it is a collective and not an individual effort, although paradoxically it demands to sustain a base of liberal civil and political rights for the individual; it is an open, non-linear and non-homogeneous path, in which internal frictions are as much a need to break with the inequalities as a vindication of the generational memory and struggle.

Damian Webb says that the category of utopia is increasingly domesticated in the sense that it has been redefined as "open, partial, provisional, localized" (Webb, 2020: d7-d8), in an attempt to distance the concept from any totalitarianism associated with political utopias of the 20th century. xx. The mistake in doing this, according to Webb and other authors such as Emmanuel Lévinas, is to forget the political power of global transformation and reduce it to the unique utility of a small group of people; or even to assume that the protopia of global transformation is a political one.4 is the most appropriate path because the advances are gradual or processual, albeit minute. In this dossier we want to show that, even in this domestication, the local utopian power is finding connectors in new spaces and reformulating the shortcomings or fragilities of a utopian project towards strengths or, at least, changes in perspective, which is really already a social achievement.

Then, our first knot to take into account is that the domestication of utopias is not a total loss due to their apparent detachment from globality, but can derive in an appropriation of community exercises to find new strategies of action, at a political level, but also at an ontological level, reconsidering their position and vision of the world. Although many of these projects do not take off from the local level and represent "a glimmer in the darkness" (Webb, 2020: d9), that hope as a power of change and machinery of the everyday generates such a meritorious effect on the population itself that its resonance in others does not take long to appear. Some texts, as you will see, discuss problems of global scope and of long standing, such as rural-urban migration and its identity consequences (Serrano, 2024) or the struggle for political recognition and the utopia of community autonomy (Zárate, 2024), which reminds us that the dialogue between the strategies and cultural capacities of a population with the different state social programs (ejido land endowment, bilingual education, family cooperatives) exposes epistemological mechanisms in situ of great value for social analysis.

Our second bet has to do with the internal values of utopia as a philosophical and political category: the inner good of utopia or utopian practice, following Alasdair McIntyre (2004), takes force not only because the community itself wants it, but because of the heterogeneity of inputs that the community receives from outside (external goods); communities are not closed or isolated, since they live in regional, national and global geopolitics, especially when resources are limited or precious for some global consumer market. There is no competing inside-outside dichotomy here, but a flow of goods, capital and people that constitute the morphology of utopia. You will see in the examples contained in this dossier that each community supports its projects not without living with tensions, rules, expectations and other agreements and disagreements among its members. After all, what utopia does not demand some sacrifice or moral compromise from its members.

The absolute failure of the conditions to which a society aspires, the debacle of aspirational practices, the end of hope and certainties of life (Lear, 2007) would be the main dystopia of any of the communities described in this dossier. This issue leads us to raise our third knot: dystopias are an inherent part of the utopian power, they are a counterforce, a counterweight that mobilizes towards the horizon of the anti-utopia, one that must be avoided, regulated and even negotiated in everyday life. Seen in this way, communitarian dystopias do not emerge spontaneously or are situated in an uncertain, abstract and speculative future -as most literary or filmic fictions position it-, but exist latently, paraphrasing Bloch's words: they are a present darkness that regulates the very bet on communitarian utopia (2006).

The impossibilities of achieving the desired, the moment of facing the economic or political wall to manage change, be it conceptual or practical, are momentary, but necessary for the awareness of a given crisis to become a motivator for the whole collective. This is our fourth knot: there is no exclusive or excluding moment to achieve utopia, but rather history or time is replete with events that make possible the change of the desired future, not without its setbacks. "In reality, there is no instant that does not bring with it its revolutionary opportunity", as Walter Benjamin declared in The concept of History (2008). Thus, we think of utopias and dystopias as intermingled in their development because both occur, to different degrees and emergencies, in the same historical times, but it will depend on each collective or community to choose which moment to privilege and pursue for their project.

Both utopia and dystopia are daughters of modernity, of the rationalist thinking that points us to a subject that always decides (i.e., a subject that always decides).rational-choice) and somehow, he is in control of his destiny or finality: that it is his will that will lead him to utopia or dystopia. The exercises of change that we show in this dossier confront this reading by positioning utopias as an exercise that will not work without the collective subject, but that are not always reactionary and rationalized exercises either, since they are emotional, corporal and territorial managements that include several decades, disappointments, fears and restarts. It is worth mentioning that many times, as Patricia Vieira reminds us, this longed-for future is also in danger of being destroyed both by outside forces and by our own. In this circumstance, the future seen as the end of time is a reflection of a presentist collective ego, since it assumes that the worst possible crisis is experienced in the present, leaving those of the past as less severe crises (Vieira, 2020: 366).

A fifth important knot to expose, and one that constantly arises in research of this scope, is the future and the times. As Ashis Nandy suggests, the perspective of future studies is to generate the sensibility of imagining the future and/or disengaging from the objective past: "Our options in the future are said to be limited by our past, but it is actually limited by our self-constructed past" (Ramos, 2005: 434). Utopias, as well as dystopias, are intrinsically related to the imagined future, in the sense that they are horizons of change or aspirational capacities to bring about desired changes.

"The capacity to aspire to create credible horizons of hope and desires," Appadurai (2013: 193) will say, is a collective power to negotiate that future, it is a cultural meta-capacity to relate to others and care for each other. It gives subjects an ethical horizon to create meanings, to substantiate practices, to move from illusion to reflexive desire.

Moro's utopia, as well as the next ones in European history, sailed towards the impossible with proposals for the administration of the common good, a just and affordable government, a local and solidarity economy. They focused on the proper administration of natural and social resources. Utopias in Latin America go to We also find more and more community exercises that are also being promoted for the proper management of natural and social resources, but now emphasizing emancipation from the State, demanding the recognition of ancestry and identities made invisible in the official history, with the international market and centralist governments as enemies or direct contenders to achieve self-determination.

Finally, it is relevant to remember that the "new Latin American utopias" intrude in current discussions on the decoloniality of thought (Mignolo, 2007; Said, 2008; De Sousa Santos, 2009), the opening of feminisms and territoriality (Varea and Zaragocin, 2017), the demand for political autonomies or recognitions of plurinationality and pluri-ethnicity (De la Cadena and Starn, 2010; Rivera Cusicanqui, 1996) and also in those utopias associated with food sovereignty and natural resource management on the part of agrarian and indigenous communities themselves (Giraldo, 2014; Leff, 2014). In most of these discussions, the proposals of good living/living well are situated as the ontological and epistemic model to achieve that "correct society", from the indigenous conceptions themselves. The plurality and heterogeneity of practices, traditions and perspectives on living well is very large throughout Latin America and demonstrates the need to think critically about how they operate in their contexts and beyond (e.g., the need for a critical analysis of how they operate in their contexts and outside them): Sumak Kawsay, in Ecuador; Lekil Kuxlejal in Chiapas; Guendabianiin Oaxaca; Suma qamaña and Ñandereko in Peru, among many others).

The ethnographies in this dossier show the frictions, differences and even contradictions in cultural dynamics when traditional ways of organizing life, the longing to recover the past and keep it alive, internal social rules, moral principles, the demands and aspirations of younger generations, external and internal intellectual proposals, learning to organize political struggles and dialogues with the State, the influence of markets, national policies and the multiple paths to achieve the desired futures come together. If there is one tradition worth remembering from the utopian proposals of the last centuries, it is that the subject of change requires the collectivity to develop its capacity for agency towards change, towards the dreamed horizon.

The topics covered in this dossier navigate a series of theoretical and methodological discussions on the approach to the community subject, the morphology of community utopias, the future of community life and its future horizons. The compilation is varied in its disciplinary incursions and, although the majority are ethnographies that we present, the reflections are made from a heterogeneous box of reflections, which we consider nourishes the discussion expansively instead of limiting it. The constant categories of analysis are utopias, communities and futures, and all contain their predicaments and divergent proposals.

Eduardo Zárate (2024) makes a historical review of the Purhépecha movement in its struggle for the vindication of its autonomy, local governments and social organization, as well as ethnic identity. Zárate uses utopia as a clutch The Purhépecha population itself is in itself a utopian movement in many senses, since it proposes to achieve a harmonious, self-governing Purhépecha society, claiming ancient traditions and formulating new ones, administering them in a way that is both harmonious and self-governing. The Purhépecha population itself is in itself a utopian movement in many senses, since it proposes to reach a harmonious Purhépecha society of self-government, claiming ancient traditions and formulating new ones, administering its natural resources and establishing political and ideological borders with the Mexican State, moving away from proposing a non-existent society, but a concrete one.

With the second article we turn to the analysis of Carlos Casas (2024) on the production of Nahua literature in the Sierra de Zongolica, Veracruz, where Nahua bilingual teachers from two different groups combine experiences, imaginaries, speculations and present realities to think about their linguistic-community utopia. Contrary to the previous text, Casas focuses on the artistic exercise of the community as a mixture between the technological and educational conditions of the present and the strength of traditions (orality, memory, identity) to continue being community subjects, and analyzes it through what he calls: practices of the future. By avoiding falling into the false dichotomy of ancestrality-modernity, Casas sees that being Nahua and being an artist do not merge as contradictory entities to create a new figure, but rather he highlights the plurality of vocations of the Nahua in contemporaneity.

The text by Javier Serrano (2024): The future in common. Indigenous communities in the cities of the lower Negro River, Norpatagonia, Argentina.demonstrates the fragility of the essences in categories such as community, ancestry or identity by reviewing the history of the Mapuche in their migratory process from the countryside to the city. Instead of longing for "the lost identity", Serrano proposes to think the community, the community arrangements, as projects of shared future, which allows - methodologically and conceptually - to think and observe the Mapuche-Tehuelche community as a collective subject that does not lack contradictions, organizational limitations or ontological debates with its coterráneos; at the same time, it highlights the individual and collective social aspirations that arise from the new geographic and organizational conditions for a population of ethnic type. The hope for change, perhaps more associated with the modernist utopia of development, is found in the urban markets of the cities, in the possibilities of achieving upward social mobility, of materially transforming their living conditions, while still putting at risk the territorial nexus with the community or with their own identity in a foreign context.

The penultimate text, by Rogelio Ruiz (2024), is an interdisciplinary study between anthropology and history that presents the historical territorial transformations and the collective and individual experiences of the ejido El Porvenir, in Baja California. Ruiz expresses the conformation of the ejido from the juxtaposition between memory and history, between local memories and official records. His study is situated in those post-revolutionary utopias of a Mexico that wants to be a sovereign nation-state, promising modernity for all its citizens and especially for the rural sector, control and possession of the lands they work with the institution of El Ejido. In this sense, Ruiz evokes the nostalgia of a community that has an encouraging name for its social existence, which resorts to that old state promise with its own social tools, memory. In this case, it is not retropia (going back to the agricultural past) or a utopia with a view to the future that they desire, but to join a forgotten extract of a past they did not live, that of the delivery of ejido titles. Thus, El Porvenir wants to realize a utopia that outside its community is more of a past reality.

The text by Delázkar Rizo (2024) explores the everyday life of a small autonomous village in Zinacantán, Chiapas. Rizo's position is to see certain daily practices as utopian practices that shape the history of the village or collective, define a narrative of the community subject, a horizon of the future and establish new rules of behavior as members of an autonomous, Zapatista and Catholic collective. sui generis. This text does not address the utopian dimension of the autonomous project, but rather the fragmentations of the evolution of its collective project through the experiences of three young people, mainly in their encounters and disagreements with the rules they must assume as members of the autonomous community. Dystopia appears here as a countercurrent exercise, as a hopeless horizon that only time will show whether it strengthened the collective or fragmented it to the point of collapse.

Bibliography

Aínsa, Fernando (1999). La reconstrucción de la utopía. Buenos Aires: Ediciones del Sol/Unesco.

Appadurai, Arjun (2013). The Future as Cultural Fact. Essays on the Global Condition (1a. ed.). Londres: Verso.

Bachelard, Gaston (2000). La formación del espíritu científico (23a. ed.). Siglo xxi Editores.

Barabas, Alicia (2000). Utopías indias: movimientos sociorreligiosos en México. Quito: Ediciones abya-yala.

Benjamin, Walter (2008). Tesis sobre la historia y otros fragmentos. Introd. y trad. Bolívar Echeverría. México: Itaca/uacm.

Casas, Carlos (2024). “Escritores nahuas: utopías comunitarias y prácticas sobre los futuros posibles en la Sierra de Zongolica, México”, Encartes 7(14). https://doi.org/10.29340/en.v7n14.390.377

Celentiano, Adrián (2005). “Utopía: historia, concepto y política”, Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana, 10(31), pp. 93-114.

De la Cadena, Marisol y Orin Starn (eds.) (2010). Indigeneidades contemporáneas: cultura, política y globalización. Lima: Institut Français d’Études Andines/Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ifea.6218

De Sousa Santos, Boaventura (2009). Una epistemología del sur. La reinvención del conocimiento y la emancipación social. Buenos aires: Siglo xxi Editores/clacso, pp. 160-209.

Esteban, Ángel (2023). Formas del fin del mundo: crisis, ecología y distopías en la literatura y la cultura latinoamericanas. Bruselas: Peter Lang.

Giraldo, Omar Felipe (2014). Utopías en la era de la supervivencia. Una interpretación del buen vivir (1ª. ed). México: Itaca/Universidad de Chapingo.

Krotz, Esteban (2020). “América Latina a principios del siglo xxi: entre distopías y utopías”, En-Claves del Pensamiento, xiv(28), pp. 86-109.

Lear, Jonathan (2007). “Reelaborando el fin de la civilización”, Psicoanálisis APdeBA, xxix(1), pp. 77-99.

Leff, Enrique (2014). La apuesta por la vida. Imaginación sociológica e imaginarios sociales en los territorios ambientales del sur. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.

MacIntyre, Alasdair (2004). Tras la virtud (2a. ed). Barcelona: A & M Gràfic, S.L.

Mignolo, Walter (2007). “La idea de América Latina: la herida colonial y la opción decolonial”. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Moro, Tomás (2010). “Utopía”, en Eugenio Ímaz (ed.). Utopías del renacimiento. México: fce, pp. 37- 140.

Pro, Juan (2024). “América Latina, la utopía y los utopian studies”, en Nueva Sociedad, (309), pp. 48-59.

—, Monika Brenišínová y Elena Ansótegui (2021). Nuevos mundos: América y la utopía entre espacio y tiempo. Madrid: Vervuert Verlagsgesellschaft. https://doi.org/10.31819/9783968691558

Ramos, José María (2005). “Memories and Methods: Conversations with Ashis Nandy, Ziauddin Sardar and Richard Slaughter”, Futures, 37(5), pp. 433-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2004.10.010

Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia (1996). “Los desafíos para una democracia étnica y genérica en los albores del tercer milenio”, en Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui (comp.). Ser mujer indígena, chola o birlocha en la Bolivia postcolonial de los años 90. La Paz: Subsecretaría de Asuntos de Género, p. 451.

Rizo, Delázkar (2024). “Componer y fragmentar la utopía comunitaria. Vivir la autonomía entre sueños y decepciones”, Encartes, 7(14). https://doi.org/10.29340/en.v7n14.370

Ruiz, Rogelio (2024). “Ejido El Porvenir en Valle de Guadalupe, Baja California. Trazas históricas de una comunidad agrícola”, Encartes, 7(14). https://doi.org/10.29340/en.v7n14.381

Said, Edward W. (2008). Orientalismo. Barcelona: De Bolsillo.

Serrano, Javier (2024). “El futuro en común. Las comunidades indígenas en las ciudades del bajo río Negro, Norpatagonia argentina”, Encartes, 7(14). https://doi.org/10.29340/en.v7n14.369

Varea, Soledad y Sofía Zaragocin (2017). Feminismo y buen vivir: utopías decoloniales. Logroño: pydlos Ediciones.

Vieira, Patricia (2020). “Utopia and Dystopia in the Age of the Anthropocene”, Esbocos, 27(46), pp. 350-365. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7976.2020.e72386

Webb, Darren (2020). “The Domestication of Utopia and the Climate Crisis”, MediAzioni, 27, pp. 6-16.

Zárate, Eduardo (2024). “Utopías comunitarias como apuestas del futuro entre los purhépechas”, Encartes, 7(14). https://doi.org/10.29340/en.v7n14.390

Delázkar Noel Rizo Gutiérrez. Nicaraguan. D. in Social Anthropology from the ciesas-Southeast (2019). Assigned to the Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Chiapas. Candidate to the snipostdoctoral fellow at the unam (2020-2022); postdoctoral fellow by conahcyt (2022-2024). Lines of interest: ethnography, futures, utopias, environmental narratives; temporalities, ethics, humor. Member of working groups and seminars: Network of Studies on Communities, Utopias and Futures (riocomun), Working Group of the Latin American Anthropological Association; Seminar on Anthropology of Outer Space; Working Group on Humor, Laughter and Hierarchies.