Collective organization and collaborative practices: a research together with tango collaborators and “hacedores/as” (cultural agents) in the context of the pandemic (Argentina)¹

ABSTRACT

In this article, I pursue to analyse some collective actions produced during the 2020 pandemic crisis. Based on fieldwork conducted between 2020 and 2021 through technological and digital devices, I aim to investigate the forms of collective organization that emerged among “trabajadores/as del tango” (tango collaborators) and “hacedores/as” (cultural agents) in Argentina. Firstly, I analyze the process of developing and implementing of a survey, which was part of a collaborative research project carried out with the “Asamblea Federal de Trabajadores/as de Tango” (AFTT). I explore how this collaborative research posed a production of knowledge, which in turn involved multiple perspectives and views regarding the various actors and organizations I worked with. Secondly, I reflect on our role as researchers involved in knowledge construction practices developed alongside and with social collectives.

KEYWORDS
Collective organization; Workers; Collaborative research; Pandemic; Tango

RESUMEN

En este artículo me interesa analizar algunas acciones colectivas ocurridas durante la crisis provocada por la pandemia del Covid-19. Basado en un trabajo de campo realizado entre el 2020 y 2021 a través de dispositivos tecnológicos y digitales, me propongo indagar sobre las formas de organización colectiva que se desarrollaron entre los/as trabajadores/as y hacedores/as del tango en la Argentina. En primer lugar, analizo el proceso de elaboración e implementación de una encuesta, como parte de una investigación colaborativa desarrollada junto con la Asamblea Federal de Trabajadores/as del Tango (AFTT). Problematizo de qué manera esta investigación colaborativa supuso una producción de conocimiento que involucró múltiples posicionamientos y miradas en relación a los diversos actores y organizaciones con las que trabajé. En segundo lugar, reflexiono sobre nuestro rol como investigadores implicados en prácticas de construcción de conocimiento elaboradas junto y con los colectivos sociales.

PALABRAS CLAVE
Organización colectiva; Trabajadores; Investigación colaborativa; Pandemia; Tango

INTRODUCTION

During the times of high uncertainty due to the Covid-19 pandemic², and a few days after Argentina established the measure of “Aislamiento Social, Preventivo y Obligatorio” (ASPO) (Social, Preventive and Mandatory Isolation), a newspaper article stated:

“No sector of tango is optimistic about the situation. They agree that this is going to be a long haul and that winter will exacerbate the problem (...) For now, in an unprecedented move, almost all associations in this sector have joined forces to carry out a large Federal Census in order to find out how many dancers, musicians, sound engineers, managers and producers live entirely or partially from the genre. The results will be introduced to the Ministry of Culture, headed by Tristán Bauer”

(Valenzuela, 2020).

As Lins Ribeiro (2021) emphasised, the pandemic as a “critical event”³ profoundly altered the temporal continuity, conditions and development of people’s lives, “de-normalising” the rhythms of social reproduction “...to place us in liminal moments, that is, moments of classificatory and behavioural confusion, between a past of routines [...] and a present and future full of uncertainty” (Lins Ribeiro, 2021: 108). Thus, as in the rest of the world, in Argentina the health emergency caused by Covid-19 generated an enormous crisis in the cultural and artistic fields. Let us remember that on 20 March 2020, the national government implemented a health policy known as ASPO⁴ . These lockdown measures strictly restricted economic, work and social activities, except for those individuals or sectors that performed essential tasks. It was the artistic and cultural world that suffered from these regulations the most, especially with greater impact with regards to “live” shows and events, as well as performing arts and training/teaching activities (Capasso, Camezzana, Mora and Sáez, 2020; Moguillansky, 2021; Mauro, 2022; del Mármol and Díaz, 2022).

It should be noted that prior to the pandemic, the culture and art field was already in a situation of undoubted fragility and job insecurity, and often a neglected part of the formal economy. As highlighted by some studies dedicated to addressing the labour dimensions of artistic activity, under neoliberal capitalism, this activity is often carried out under conditions of flexibility, informality and self-precarisation (Bolstanski and Chiapello, 1999; Lorey, 2008; Kunst, 2015). As a result, the pandemic highlighted the inequalities and conditions of high informality and self-employment already existing in the sector (Capasso, Camezzana, Mora and Sáez, 2020; Mauro, 2020; Dinardi, Wortman and Muñoz Hernández, 2023). In addition, the pandemic revealed the pre-existing inequalities and evident institutional informality and the lack of an organisational base, capable of channelling the urgent demands of the cultural sector (Fuentes Firmani, 2020).

In this context, cultural workers and “hacedores/as culturales” (cultural agents)⁵ associated with tango were not immune to the enormous impact that the arrival of Covid-19 had on their activities. Initially, the reaction of this sector was swift and even preceded the health restrictions⁶; with concerts, shows, rehearsals and tours being cancelled, and venues and social events such as lessons, “milongas” and “tanguerías” being closed. From the outset, it was the sector itself that sought to open dialogue with various government bodies. In response to these demands, the state quickly implemented a set of palliative measures for the cultural sector in general, established by the national government through a series of grant programmes, subsidies and special financial support.⁷

However, the implementation of these emergency programmes posed a major challenge for the state, which were largely overwhelmed. In addition to this fact, these initiatives generally lacked planning, organisation and dialogue with the artistic sector itself, and therefore were perceived as insufficient and/or ineffective in many cases⁸. On the other hand, although tango workers themselves generated multiple informal and self-managed work strategies to improve the situation, in most cases these ventures were insufficient to earn a daily living or to offset the economic losses caused by the pandemic⁹. In short, due to the weak or lack of public policies, we note the limitations expressed by the state in response to the demands of the cultural sector. A “truncated” state (O’Donnell, 2008), that is, one with a weak capacity to meet the demands of its citizens, whose counterpart implies a “neoliberal governmentality” (Foucault, 2008) in which the state tends to transfer responsibility for their own survival to individuals.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to analyse a set of collective organisation initiatives that were deployed during the health emergency and the period when the ASPO and DISPO¹⁰ policies came into force, considering that “critical events have the capacity to generate new forms of action and meanings of the political, and to transform identities” (Vecchioli, 2000 in Lins Ribeiro, 2021). In this regard, several studies have highlighted how this unprecedented crisis not only exposed the already existing precarious working conditions in the arts and culture scene, but also strengthened and intensified a process of collective organisation (Capasso, Camezzana, Mora and Sáez, 2020; Verdenelli and Winokur, 2021; del Mármol and Díaz, 2022). On the one hand, through the emergence and/or strengthening of various groups, associations, collectives and networks, the pandemic enabled the emergence of multiple forms of activism and collective responses. At the local and Latin American level, some research has addressed the different processes and organisational forms developed by the arts and culture sector in the context of the pandemic (Pinochet Cobos, Peters and Guzmán, 2021; Simonetti and Cestau, 2022; del Mármol and Díaz, 2022). Beyond the different theoretical proposals on which these studies are based, they generally place these political and associative dynamics in their variable and conjunctural nature, where more stable and permanent collective organisations can converge over time with more informal, fluid and discontinuous social movements and activism. On the other hand, as mentioned in the news article above, in many cases these collective actions included the development of some type of survey, census or poll. As we will see, the main objective of these initiatives was to understand the impact of the pandemic, seeking to gather information that would not only allow for the identification and visibility of the particular problems of each cultural sector, but also support the claims and requests for support from the state.

In this article, I am interested in analysing how some unexpected responses have appeared as a result of this extraordinary and critical event. As other research experiences suggest (Visacovsky, 2023), the context of the pandemic represents an extremely favourable opportunity to try to inquire and better understand some initiatives and responses in terms of collective organisation. In particular, I propose to investigate some forms of collective organisation that developed during 2020 and 2021 among tango collaborators and “hacedores/as” in Argentina.

First, I characterise the emergence of this organisational process, describing how a group of tango organisations were (re)activated. Next, based on collaborative research I conducted with the “Asamblea Federal de trabajadores/as del Tango” (AFTT) (Federal Assembly of Tango Workers), I analyse the process of developing what was called the “Encuesta Federal de Trabajadores/ras del Tango” (Federal Survey of Tango Workers). As is well known, the purpose of a survey is to gather a large amount of data using a pre-designed questionnaire. In general, the aim is to analyse this massive volume of information using statistical methods and to process the results in order to measure the relationships between different variables (demographic, economic, social, etc.). However, on this occasion, I will not focus on the analysis of the data collected by this survey or on the results of this quantitative research, but rather on what happened while the survey was being developed¹¹. In this sense, I analyse some aspects of its “making”, that is, those instances of discussion, exchange and reflection produced at the time the survey was being designed. Since developing the survey, I noticed diverse positions, perspectives and discussions from this instrument of knowledge. I seek therefore to unravel how the construction of the survey led to a series of debates and tensions among the actors involved.

Secondly, in this article I seek to develop a reflective exercise around collaborative research, understanding that the “collaborative approach enables a path where knowledge is co-produced with those with whom we carry out the research and jointly identify problems and solutions...” (Carenzo, Fernández Álvarez, Castronovo, Gigliarelli, 2019: 157). As I will develop below, the methodology of working through a collaborative approach and in interaction with different tango collectives, especially with the AFTT, had a significant impact not only when designing and interpreting the survey but also entailed a diversity of symbolic and political interests. It should be noted that the anthropological literature associated with ethnography and collaborative research has reflected from different perspectives on the role played by grassroots organisations and social movements as producers of knowledge and knowledge practices (Rappaport, 2007; Fernández Álvarez and Carenzo; 2012; Infantino, 2017; Arribas, 2020; Álvarez Veinguer, Arribas and Dietz, 2020). These studies, conducted on co-research initiatives, although with different emphases in each case, have highlighted the instances of dialogue, innovative intersections and challenges that unfold between academic knowledge and that of the activists and communities themselves. Based on some of these contributions, I reflect on our role as researchers involved in collaborative processes, on our involvement in knowledge-building practices developed together with and alongside the social collectives with which we work (Arribas, 2015). All things considered, my intention through this work is to narrate and “think about collaboration from collaboration” (Arribas, 2015: 59), that is, not from a supposedly pre-established methodology but, in any case, reflecting on this research practice within the framework of specific contexts and situated processes (Álvarez Veinguer, Arribas and Dietz, 2020), in light of a “situated knowledge” (Haraway, 1995) which emerges from specific and involved historical positions.

Given the limitations on in-person access due to Covid restrictions, the methodological strategy adopted for this research was to conduct fieldwork using technological devices and relationships mediated by digital worlds (Hine, 2000; Ardèvol, Estalella, and Domínguez, 2008). Throughout this article, we will see that not only for me, but also for the organisations I worked with, the digital and internet environment became an essential tool in everyday life, generating new forms of sociability and relationships. Therefore, through multi-sited research (Marcus, 1995) in different digital environments, I set out to address some interrelated social spaces, recording different types of online publications, as well as public forums such as conversations, meetings, assemblies and online events related to the studied field (through platforms such as Zoom, Meet or YouTube and social networks such as Facebook or Instagram). My presence in these online spaces or activities involved both observation and participation, as well as private exchanges and informal conversations through various technological means (telephone or WhatsApp).

“We are using the time of the pandemic to get to know each other and organise ourselves”

As I pointed out earlier in this work, the outbreak of the pandemic very quickly generated an emerging organisational agenda among those who work or earn their living from tango in Argentina. Let’s say that this enormous intensification of cultural activism from different collectives and groups, which numbered more than 40 by mid-2020, included the emergence of new organisations, associations and networks, as well as the reactivation of previously existing groups¹² (Verdenelli and Winokur, 2021). While some of these collectives showed greater permanence and continuity over time, others were relatively short-lived. In an attempt to respond to various pressing issues, these organisations carried out a huge number of activities during the pandemic related to artistic and cultural projects (management of milongas, concerts or online lessons), addressing immediate material issues (solidarity collections and distribution of basic necessities), organising online meetings and talks, and drawing up demands to the state authorities, among others. As for the main criteria for bringing these collectives together, many responded to territorial issues (by area or region), others were grouped by activity or sector (dancers, musicians, milonga organisers, sound engineers, communicators, etc.), while another important sector responded to feminist and gender issues.

Within the framework of this associative expansion, another organisational strategy that emerged during the pandemic was the formation of different collectives of organisations that called themselves “assemblies”, “fronts” or “networks”¹³. In a way, these groupings represented a new form of collective action within the sector, which we could call “pan-tanguera”. The creation of these “broad” groupings, in which different groups and collective organisations coexisted, sought to strengthen common objectives and promote joint actions.

Nevertheless, the way how these collectives of organisations got together can also be seen as an attempt to overcome the fragmentation and confrontation that, sometimes, occurred between different collectives, both during and prior to this crisis context. It should be noted that the configuration of multiple collective organisations triggered by the pandemic was not always a harmonious process. On the contrary, this process was marked by constant negotiations and power struggles, both within and between the different organisations.

Within the framework of these “pan-tangueras” organisations, the “Asamblea Federal de Trabajadores/as del Tango” (AFTT) played a prominent role, given that it came to include a large number of groups, many of which came from different cities, provinces and regions of the country¹⁴. In particular, the AFTT sought to develop initiatives that would allow for greater coordination and dialogue between the various individuals and organisations involved in tango at the national level. On the one hand, it was made up of organisations involved in various specific activities, which gave it a broad and “multisectoral” character, bringing together musicians and dancers, communicators and clothing manufacturers, among others. On the other hand, it appealed to a national extent , trying account for the activity of this sector throughout the country. In a way, and as we will see later, this decentralisation aimed to build more fluid exchanges between metropolitan actors in Buenos Aires and those from the provinces.

In turn ad through different strategies and actions, the purposes of the AFTT was to achieve acknowledgment and raise a question about the conditions for the tango collaborators. In particular, this organisation highlighted the lack of cultural policies at the national level, for which it outlined the need to design and proposed public policies that would allow the development of activities related to tango throughout the country¹⁵. However, how can the state intervene in an artistic activity and a cultural sector that is unknown due to the lack of official information and data¹⁶? What did the situation look like and what was the impact of the pandemic on a sector as diverse in terms of geographical scope and plurality of activities as tango? How many, where and whom to assist in the context of a pandemic emergency? How to demand and carry out claims to the State without this specific information?

These were some of the questions that began to arise within the AFTT at the beginning of the pandemic. In fact, the importance of having information, what they called “hard data” or “real numbers” about the sector¹⁷, became clear as AFTT members began to contact civil servants from the Ministry of Culture¹⁸. In a way, these dialogues with the civil servants, and the fact that it was the state itself that was unaware of and/or lacked information about the sector, generated a new work agenda for the AFTT in response. Let us bear in mind that this “informational capital” (Bourdieu, 1996) was considered essential from the state’s point of view in order to meet the demands of the sector. As Bourdieu (1988) observed, for official discourse, it is essential to have “authoritative reports” that attest to the validity of the social problem in question (Oszlak and O’Donnell, 1981). Likewise, from the AFFT’s point of view, it was also perceived that it was essential to produce this “informational capital”, a form of “symbolic capital” which served both to highlight the problems of the sector and to support requests for support from state agencies.

In short, as the title of this section indicates – taken from my field notes – “the time of the pandemic” generated new conditions and ways of managing life in a context of crisis. While this temporality prevented the exercise of normal work activities and living conditions, it enabled a process of organisation and emerging collective action, which created the circumstances for carrying out a series of knowledge practices, such as surveys and polls, promoted by the collectives themselves.

The Federal Survey of Tango Workers

During the early days of the pandemic, the AFTT created a short survey using “Google Forms”, which was distributed across various social media platforms. The aim of this initiative was to gather information about the sociodemographic and hiring characteristics of people working in the tango industry in Argentina, in an attempt to assess the economic and employment situation facing the sector as a result of the pandemic. Although this survey was initially designed and launched by the collective itself, a group of professionals, including myself, were later called upon to analyse and report on the data collected¹⁹.

Shortly afterwards, following the large number of responses to this first survey, the AFTT decided to carry out an improved survey with the aim of analysing in greater depth the activities carried out by individuals and organisations working with tango at national level. This second survey project, which began in May 2020, was called the “Encuesta Federal de Trabajadores/as de Tango” (EFTT) (Federal Survey of Tango Workers). On this occasion, I was again called²⁰ upon to work on the design and implementation of the questionnaire together with a team made up of Matías Zarlenga and Agustina Coloma²¹, both sociologists.

Usually, the research procedure for designing a survey questionnaire is carried out by researchers who are “experts” in the field. However, on this occasion, we agreed to work on the process of developing and implementing the survey together with the collective in question. We therefore positioned this project as a collaborative research effort, understanding that:

“...collaboration refers to a framework of co-production of knowledge, a scenario that involves affirming the reflexivity and character of expert knowledge producers of the subjects with whom we work, taking into account their epistemic and political locations, their interests, their questions and intellectual practices, and not only academic or disciplinary interests, as the starting point for our projects”

(Arribas, 2020: 342).

However, in my position as a researcher, responding to this demand, implied shifting my own research, which led to the development of a new work agenda closely associated with the requests, regular meetings, and work schedules of the collective organisations involved. In a way, collaborative research involves a certain loss of control over our work in the academic field (associated with personal concerns, research criteria, work deadlines, etc.), often in order to respond to demands and seek solutions to specific problems. However, as other researchers have pointed out, this form of research allows us to think about/imagine other possibilities for the production of knowledge, developed from more dialogical and negotiated relationships and practices with addressees/interlocutors in the field (Álvarez Veinguer, Arribas and Dietz, 2020).

For its part, the AFTT considered it necessary for this survey to be endorsed by the work of experts in the field. In this context, our role as a work team was often identified and presented to others as that of the “experts” or “professionals” in charge of the survey. In other words, having this accreditation was seen as a very positive attribute, largely because it legitimised and lent “seriousness” to the survey project in the eyes of both state actors and other organisations in the sector²². However, on occasions, our work also generated some resentment among certain addressees/ interlocutors, who were reluctant to provide certain information, questioned the results or refused to collaborate with the survey. This aspect will be addressed in more detail later in the section where I analyse the “mistrust” surrounding the survey.

Specifically, the EFTT questionnaire was available online between 25 September and 8 November 2020 through the “Survey Monkey” survey´s platform. In general terms, the survey sought to understand the socio-professional, labour and organisational conditions of people involved in tango in Argentina. Its questions aimed to understand the reality of these people and their organisations in the pre-pandemic period (2019) and during the pandemic (2020). The questionnaire was organised into six sections containing a total of more than 70 questions²³. As a result, the survey was answered by 2,411 individuals and 1,417 organisations, on a voluntary and self-administered basis. After the survey was completed, we conducted a quantitative study of its results, which was published in a freely accessible book (Zarlenga, Morel and Coloma, 2022).

While conducting the survey: collaborative research

In one of her reflections on collaborative ethnography, Joane Rappaport pointed out that “...what happens in the field should be as privileged as the final written product. The co-theorisation that unfolds in the field is what sets collaborative ethnography apart from the mainstream of its predecessors” (Rappaport, 2007: 204). So, below, I am interested in focusing not so much on the content of the questionnaire or the results of the data collected from this survey, but rather on reflecting on how it was constructed together with the AFTT collective. What was the working methodology? How were the different variables and questions in the questionnaire generated? What did it mean for me as an anthropologist to develop a survey in collaboration with specific tango collectives? What challenges emerged? If the survey was the result of a long process of discussion and agreement with different actors consulted in the field, how can this process be accounted for?

One aspect worth highlighting is related to the time and the long process that was necessary for the formulation, design and launch of the survey. Although the survey began to be developed in May 2020, it was not until the end of September that it was available to be answered. It should be noted that from the outset, there was no clearly planned project, as we did not know for sure what we were going to develop and how. In any case, the survey was put together gradually and was resolved based on various demands, circumstances and situations that arose. As I will describe below, the deadlines for the different stages were postponed as different instances of dialogue, reformulations and unforeseeable situations arose.

Initially, we began working with some members of the AFTT on the content to be included in the survey questionnaire. While this was happening, we decided to organise a series of online meetings to discuss and analyse the content. So, together with the work team, namely Matías Zarlenga and Agustina Coloma, we began to participate routinely in meetings and informal talks, with the aim of discussing the design of the survey as a whole. During these months, we had exchanges, often on a weekly basis, with both members of the AFTT and representatives from different sectors of tango, some from different provinces of the country²⁴. In general, the working methodology consisted of sharing the survey´s questions with those present, so that they could then give us their opinions and feedback. In this way, the meetings involved discussions about whether the dimensions of analysis were understood, as well as suggestions about whether any variables, definitions and/or parts of the questionnaire needed to be modified.

It was throughout this gradual process that the team developed different versions of the survey, based on the concerns and issues that arose from those meetings. As a member of the AFTT once told me, this work process was partly related to the idea of “working horizontally”. Certainly, this participative dynamic, open to different demands and concerns, meant that the survey took much longer to develop than we had initially anticipated, extending to almost five months.

At the same time, from the point of view of our role as a team of professionals, the practice of collaborative research posed a series of challenges when it came to operationalising, at least in terms of putting together the survey questionnaire, the multiple concerns raised by our addressees/interlocutors. In particular, I identified that the process of developing and diagnosing the survey revealed a series of challenges and tensions, of which I will address three that were very noticeable: the first, related to the issue of regional diversity and the federal scope that the survey intended to cover; the second related to the sectoral delimitation of the universe to be surveyed; and the third associated with certain mistrusts that the survey brought into play.

1- Regional diversity and the federal scope of the survey

Before the survey´s questions were concluded, I noticed that it revealed some tension, in part due to both an explicit and implicit confrontation between those representatives and/or organisations identified as “porteños” versus those from the provinces. In fact, various actors from the provinces questioned a certain centralism on the part of those from Buenos Aires, as often seen in the tango field, which was evident in the first versions of the survey´s form design. In particular, they stated that some of the criteria or questions that appeared in the survey did not fully meet or reflect the diversity of realities and practices specific to their regions. Many of these concerns generally emerged through observations about questions in the questionnaire that were considered too restrictive or that focused on certain issues in comparison with others. For example, comments were often heard stating that tango economic activity in the city of Buenos Aires is much more “profitable” or “easier” to carry out. In contrast, they emphasised that the reality they experience in the provinces is very different, as it is more closely linked to “small businesses”, many of which are run for “pleasure”, “ad honorem” or in a “self-managed” way, and where they often “lose money”. At the same time, they highlighted their situation of multiple employment, emphasising that tango was only one of several activities they carried out to earn a living. In addition, many mentioned greater multi-activity, with the same person being able to play multiple roles at the same time (for example, being a dance teacher, dancer, milonga organiser and musicaliser).

In response to these concerns, our task was to address the issues raised. Initially, we recorded the comments and then, through dialogue and discussion, we co-produced the variables for questions, based on mutual agreements with those consulted. With regard to the AFTT, I seek to address these concerns through the following strategy: on the one hand, to include as many representatives from the provinces as possible in the meetings and, on the other, to postpone the launch of the survey so that all these observations can be discussed, agreed upon and resolved.

It is interesting to note that for the actors from the provinces, it was important to vindicate a series of local knowledge and practices related to their activities with tango. In a way, for these actors, the demand for inclusion of these activities and associated problems in the survey operated as a strategy for recognition, especially in relation to other city representatives.

2- The delimitation of the surveyed group

Another source of tension that arose throughout this research was related to identifying who would be surveyed. How could we define who the key actors in the tango sector were as collaborators? How far should the universe to be surveyed extend? How could we include all the actors linked to the activity without making the survey unfeasible in terms of the extent of the group to be addressed?

Initially, it was agreed with the AFTT that the survey should be answered by individuals or organisations engaged in artistic and/or cultural management activities related to tango. However, as successive meetings took place, a broader criterion prevailed, and certain actors in the sector who were not previously included were added as a result of various emerging suggestions and demands. Especially, those who were engaged in what were refer to as “related activities” were included. That is, activities that go beyond artistic work or cultural management per se, associated with services such as photography, audiovisual, visual arts, sound technicians, footwear and clothing accessories, communication, tourism, among others. In addition, just as the survey questionnaire was being finalised, a new concern arose regarding the inclusion of Argentineans working abroad, so it was decided to make some last-minute modifications. Consequently, given the large number of requests to include different activities in the survey, it was decided to create a questionnaire that would provide a broad overview of the study extent rather than seeking to delve into specific aspects of each activity.

Throughout this process, I also observed that a kind of native category often appeared that referred to those people who engage in activities related to tango as something different from “collaborators” (trabajadores/as) replacing it with the category of “hacedores/as”. The use of this second category sometimes appeared to be a way of including certain actors who did not feel fully identified or addressed by such notion. It is interesting to note this oscillation between “collaborators” and “hacedores/as” given the specific working conditions that the tango sector (and artists in general) often face, frequently characterised by multi-activity, multi-employment, informality, precariousness and self-management²⁵. Considering this situation, it was agreed with the AFTT that the survey questionnaire should cover a broad and diverse universe of people involved in tango, such as those who work part-time or full-time, with or without remuneration, as well as formally or independently.

3- Mistrust of the survey

Not all the people and organisations linked to the tango activity had a similar view or opinion of the survey, nor did they all collaborate and become equally active. The fact that some actors were not involved in the project design, dissemination or simply as respondents to the survey, suggested that for them this instrument of knowledge represented something more than a standardised succession of questions intended to collect “hard data” about those involved in tango. Indeed, depending on who was consulted, the survey was appropriated in a particular way and with very different meanings. Although, in general, during the meetings for the elaboration and evaluation of the survey, most of the participants seemed very enthusiastic about the project, often in interpersonal communication and more intimate settings, other types of narratives emerged, especially when talking to people who were not members of the AFTT. In fact, although it had been made explicit that the data provided for the survey would be anonymous and that the results of the survey would be public, I noticed that some had different concerns about this knowledge practice.

At the outset, you can identify a number of the following types of comments: 1- some criticised the way in which the survey was elaborated (pointing out the absence of wider participation or not having been included in the diagnostic meetings), 2- certain members or organisations of the collective that were conducting the survey were questioned, 3- others appealed to possible relations with the government or with certain political party´s interests, 4- some were suspicious about the capitalisation of the data collected by the collective, as well as about who would have access to and control over the data, 5 - there were doubts about whether the information that respondents uploaded in the questionnaire would be verified, and 6 - there were doubts about whether the survey would take into account the gender perspective²⁶.

These different forms of mistrust and questioning lead us to think about a series of conflicts and power issues that, in certain cases, operated between the different organisations in the sector. In fact, the fact that the survey was driven by a specific group effectively generated a field of positioning and struggles, mainly among the different organisations and/or referents in the sector. Thus, for some, the survey, in contrast to being perceived as a practice of “neutral” knowledge that made it possible to understand and show the reality of the sector through “hard data”, was interpreted as an instrument imbued with different uses and particular interests.

All of this also leads us to question the image of the “professional” or “expert”, as the only actor endowed with the authority to analyse social reality. In this sense, we notice a double game around the practice of collaborative knowledge that we have analysed. On the one hand, we are frequently positioned as the “experts”, those who are capable of carrying out a suitable analysis of a complex social reality. But, on the other hand, and given certain circumstances linked to our role and situation in the field as researchers -which depends on what knowledge we are referring to, with whom we are interacting and in what situation- we see that the subjects under investigation and the social organisations involved are also producers of different kinds of knowledge and views (Arribas, 2020). In other words, they also construct knowledge based on their experiences, positions and spaces of struggle. In this sense, we must bear in mind as researchers that the fact of establishing a link and working with a specific collective organisation, and not with another, leads us to a large extent to frame our gaze from the point of view proposed by the members and activists of this social group. At the same time, from the point of view of the subjects and organisations with which we interact, we are often placed within certain roles that go beyond our will (Mancini, Caravaca and Dikenstein, 2021).

Some conclusions

Starting from a scenario of general crisis provoked by Covid-19, in this article I set out to analyse both what collective organisations do in situations of uncertainty and absence of stability, but also, simultaneously, what is created in these processes (Vecchioli, 2000; Tsing, 2015; Avellar de Muniagurria, 2020; Visacovsky, 2023). As Lins Ribeiro observes, a critical event poses “...facts that imply the rupture in the temporal continuity of the reproduction of life, the absence of adequate meanings to understand the new situation and the need to create new interpretative models” (Lins Ribeiro, 2021: 108). In a way, I tried to analyse some forms of collective organisation enabled by this atypical temporality. A time that suddenly interrupted the everyday work and activities of society as a whole but simultaneously activated different emerging initiatives and projects that were not foreseen, creating novel “conditions of possibility” (Sigaud, 2005) for collective action and for another type of everyday “work”, more of a political and associative nature.

On the one hand, we found that this context of crisis deepened and highlighted the precarious and informal labour situation in the artistic and cultural field, but it also represented an opportunity to strengthen the sector in terms of its organisational base. In the case of tango, we can see how a series of varied collectives and groups were quickly created and/or reactivated, including the creation of “pan-tangueras” organisations, which brought together different collectives. In this process, and because of this same cultural activism, a broader sphere of collective action than previously existed was strengthened, consolidating the idea of a cultural sector associated with tango on a national scale. In part, this was achieved during the pandemic not only thanks to the existence of a previous organisational dynamic undertaken by different collectives²⁷, but also because of the interconnections provided by social platforms and networks, which facilitated new forms of exchange and collective organisation in the virtual space. In the specific case of the organisation I worked with, I highlighted the way in which a process of (self-) recognition of artists and tango makers as “workers” was deepened, making the particular problems of the sector visible in this process and strengthening the demands for state support for the activities they carry out. It must also be said that analysing the course of this cultural activism in terms of collective organisation implied considering, at the same time, the internal tensions that arose between different actors and organisations, sometimes with conflicting views and positions.

In particular, the plurality of subjects and organisations that accompanied the configuration of the survey revealed a fluidity and breadth of professional and labour identities in tango, while at the same time making visible the precariousness, multi-employment and informality as a structuring condition of the sector. In a certain way, the divergences between the category of “workers” as a labour identity and the emergence of the category of “hacedores/as” reveal certain symbolic disputes between different imaginaries and tasks around work and art.

In turn, with regard to the elaboration of the survey together with the AFTT, I pointed out that it was carried out through a working methodology that went beyond certain conventional formats where academic discourse “... never grants full epistemological status to speech produced outside the academy” (Trouillot, 2011: 229). In a way, this collaborative methodology differed from the modus operandi where “experts” - coming from the state, academia or the market - usually formulate analytical categories in a preset manner and with full control over the elaboration of the analytical instrument, a presumably “neutral” approach aimed at “extracting” information from the social world (Malo, 2004; Gastellu, 2014). In truth, as Estalella and Sánchez Criado (2020) observed, anthropologists, and we could add social researchers, have always required “others” for the production of knowledge, although this has implied different modes of collaboration, involvement and degrees of asymmetry²⁸. In our case, and in contrast to the more classical conception of research “about” the universe of an “other”, our work involved an exercise that implied leaving the academy to generate a practice of knowledge co-produced with the subjects and organisations that requested our intervention. As some research points out, this implies an approach where knowledge is produced not from the researcher himself and “about” the research subjects, but in reflexive interaction and with the actors and organisations with whom we work. Certainly these co-research practices pose epistemological displacements and dilemmas that put in tension the boundaries between research and militancy, knowledge and action (Malo, 2004). In any case, it is important to consider that “This displacement should not make us think of images of more or less naïve horizontality; it makes no sense to argue that collaboration cancels out or overcomes the complexities that run through all social relations” (Arribas, 2015: 61).

At this point a question arises: does this mean that we are dealing with knowledge that is produced together or with the organisations we work with? Although the difference is very subtle, I would say that both situations are intertwined. In our case, in certain instances there were quite unambiguous agreements that implied joint decisions, while on other occasions it was possible, based on spaces for dialogue and debate, to reach concessions or intermediate arrangements with the actors and organisations involved. In other words, not everything was always fully agreed with our addressed/interlocutors, because neither the organisation we work with, nor the tango collaborators in general, represent a homogeneous body, nor are they free from political struggle and internal tensions. In addition, we as a professional team are also constantly debating and negotiating our authorised knowledge, as was the case with my sociologist colleagues. Moreover, in a way, collaboration is always “selective” to the extent that we agree to collaborate with certain actors and organisations, while at the same time distancing ourselves from others (Katzer and Samprón, 2012).

Far from wanting to convey a preset or idealised formula around collaborative research, I refer here to a concrete and localised experience in which, throughout the research process, I shared reflections and debates in relation to certain issues and demands that were relevant to my addressed/ interlocutors. As we have described throughout the article, this knowledge practice is not exempt from multiple tensions, which need to be addressed through a critical and situated analysis (Arribas, 2020). These controversies are sometimes intertwined with discussions about who has the legitimacy to represent and be represented in the production of knowledge, which implies being attentive to and reflecting not only on our interventions as academics, but also on the silencing and contestations that operate within social fields (Trouillot, 2017).

In particular, in our research experience we detected a number of tensions and controversies that became relevant. Firstly, the need to reflect on what is and what is not named became evident, considering that for some actors - especially non-metropolitan ones - the survey operated as a key instrument to achieve greater recognition of their problems and demands. In a way, “Actors use and require this knowledge to make themselves visible so that other organisations and the state can take charge of their resolution” (Mancini, Caravaca and Dikenstein, 2021: 260). Secondly, we also saw that some people did not seem to be easily classified in a category already known in the academic field and in the social arena as “workers”, a fact that forces us to consider the challenges involved in limiting the diverse and complex activity of a sector such as tango to a category that (pre)describes them as a homogeneous collective. Finally, we note that collaborative work, together with the exercise of producing knowledge through certain instruments of analysis (in our case framed in a survey), can often lead to different forms of mistrust on the part of the collectives and people with whom we interact. This discussion of distrust of the survey reveals to us, rather than a scepticism towards the instrument of knowledge, a form of political agency. In other words, resistance to the survey can be understood as an active questioning of who holds the power to legitimise knowledge, discourses and identities in the field of tango, which alerts us to a more attentive reflection on the symbolic and political effects -in terms of recognition, exclusion and/or silencing- that all collaborative research entails. Indeed, it is important to take into account these concerns and resistances, in view of the fact that it is on the basis of these positions and points of view that the addressed/interlocutors are, to a greater or lesser degree, predisposed to participate in the project, especially when it is based on collaboration.

• 1
  I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of this article for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.
• Funding:
  This research was funded by the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICET).
• 2
  The COVID-19 pandemic caused a huge global health crisis between 2020 and 2022. During this period, a large part of the world’s population was forced to isolate themselves in their homes in response to the rapid spread of the coronavirus and the exponential increase in the number of people falling ill and dying, which overwhelmed health systems around the world.
• 3
  The author revisits this expression coined by Veena Das (1995). According to anthropologist Sergio Visacovsky, the idea of crisis is often associated with circumstances involving uncertainty, unpredictability, and the inability to imagine or think about the future (Visacovsky, 2023).
• 4
  To address the impact of the pandemic in Argentina, strong restrictive measures were implemented, including long periods of lockdown and strict social distancing protocols, which posed an enormous socioeconomic challenge both for the daily lives of the population and for the public policies that sought to mitigate the effects of the pandemic. Especially the most densely populated areas, such as the “Área Metropolitana de Buenos Aires” (AMBA), were the most affected by this isolation lockdown.
• 5
  Similar to what Lorena Avellar de Muniagurria (2018) observed, in my research, the notion of “hacedores/as culturales” was frequently mentioned by my interlocutors to refer to those agents who work or perform in multiple activities related to tango. Throughout this article, I will offer some reflections on this notion.
• 6
  On 11 March 2020, at a large assembly, various milonga and dancer associations decided to ‘pause’ their activities. The associations that organised this assembly at “Club Grisel”, located in the city of Buenos Aires, were the “Asociación de Organizadores de Milongas” (AOM), “Milongas con Sentido Social” (MISESO), “Asociación de Maestros Bailarines y Coreógrafos de Tango Argentino” (AMBCTA) and “Trabajadores del Tango Danza” (TTD).
• 7
  This public policy, implemented by the Ministry of Culture, was channelled through specific economic aid programmes such as the “Fondo Desarrollar” (Development Fund), “Fortalecer Cultura” (Strengthening Culture) and the “Sostener Cultura” (Sustaining Culture) grants, among others. It is also worth mentioning the implementation of a universal policy through the “Ingreso Familiar de Emergencia” (IFE) programme. For more details on these assistance programmes, see Moguillansky (2021).
• 8
  According to the survey results analysed in this article, only 8% of tango collaborators received a subsidy or assistance during the pandemic. For a detailed analysis see Zarlenga, Morel and Coloma (2022).
• 9
  Many took on the challenge of teaching classes online, others offered streaming shows and concerts, and some organised “virtual milongas”. In addition, solidarity and mutual aid mechanisms were also put in place through industry associations that organised deliveries of essential items and food parcels.
• 10
  After the ASPO ended, a new regulatory framework called “Distanciamiento Social, Preventivo y Obligatorio” (DISPO) (Preventive and Mandatory Social Distancing) was established on 29 November 2020.
• 11
  In fact, the methodology on which a survey is based differs clearly from qualitative and anthropological research that seeks to account for a social phenomenon through a dense, situated analysis from the point of view of the meaning that actors give to their knowledge and practices.
• 12
  Before the pandemic, there were some formally constituted associations or groups within the tango community. These groups were generally organised around specific activities, such as associations of musicians, dancers, milonga organisers, Djs., etc.
• 13
  In this regard, we can mention the “Asamblea de Colectivos Tangueros” (ACT), the “Asamblea Federal de Trabajadores del Tango” (AFTT), the “Frente Federal de Unión Tanguera” (FFUT), the “Asociación de Creadores e Interpretxs de Tango” (ACIT) and the “Red Nacional de Tango”
• 14
  Although they underwent changes, additions and separations, the groups that formed part of the AFTT in August 2020 were: “Asociación de Organizadores de Milongas” (AOM), “Asociación de Maestros Bailarines y Coreógrafos de Tango” (AMBCTA), “Milongas con sentido social” (Miseso), “Trabajadores del Tango Danza” (TTD), “Unión de Cantorxs” (UC), “Musicalizadores de Tango de Buenos Aires” (MuTaBA), “Grupos y Orquestas de Tango Milonguero” (GOTAM), “Promotores Y Comunicadores Del Tango Argentino” (PROTANGO), “Agrupación de Tango de Zona Norte2 (ATN), “Agrupación de Tango Zona Oeste2 (ATO), “Unión de Trabajadores del Calzado e Indumentaria de Tango” (UTCIT) and “Tanto Tango” (TT).
• 15
  With these objectives in mind for 2020 and 2021, within the framework of the policies developed by the Ministry of Culture of the Nation, the AFTT worked on the inclusion of the tango sector in the “Información Cultural de la Argentina” (SInCA) (Argentine Cultural Information System), the “Mercado de Industrias Culturales Argentinas” (MICA) (Argentine Cultural Industries Market) and the promotion of sectoral subsidies. It also worked with the Association of Tango Creators and Performers (ACIT) to present a bill for the creation of the “Instituto Nacional del Tango” (INTANGO) (National Tango Institute). Some of these initiatives can be viewed on the AFTT”s Facebook page, available at https://www. facebook.com/AFTTango/.
• 16
  It should be noted that at the time of the pandemic, the Argentine Cultural Information System (SInCA) did not include a measurement device with specific indicators related to tango. Furthermore, tango does not have national institutes, unlike, for example, the National Theatre Institute or the Argentine National Music Institute.
• 17
  This situation was not unique to tango, as many other groups and organisations belonging to different artistic and cultural sectors identified a similar problem and began to design and carry out their own surveys and registries during the period when the ASPO was in force. Although the Ministry of Culture, through SInCA, also conducted a National Culture Survey, this initiative lacked specificity, so each sector generally decided to carry out its own surveys.
• 18
  During the pandemic, the AFTT established dialogue with several government agencies, particularly through frequent exchanges with the National Directorate of Cultural Industries, which is part of the Ministry of Culture.
• 19
  This survey was available between 21 March and 2 April 2020. Based on the results, a brief study was conducted by a team of professionals; see Coloma, Morel, Ross, Zarlenga, and Cortada (2020). For another analysis of the results of this survey, see Coloma (2022).
• 20
  It should be noted that my career in the tango scene began in 2006 as a result of doctoral research. As part of a long-term study, over the years i developed various projects with the aim of studying different processes and aspects associated with cultural policies surrounding tango in the city of Buenos Aires. At the same time, as I consolidated my role as an “expert”, I took on various commitments and personal ties with my addressees/ interlocutors in the field, which led to me being invited to participate in a number of collaborative projects, mainly with the “Association of Milonga Organisers” (AOM). in particular, based on my research on the “closure” of milongas and the policy of creating the “Promotion of Milongas” law, I established bonds of trust with some members of the AOM, see Morel (2017, 2023, 2024).
• 21
  The decision to form this working group was made by the AFTT collective, whom I thank for inviting me to participate. I also greatly appreciate the camaraderie and commitment shown by Matías Zarlenga and Agustina Coloma throughout the entire process of developing the survey.
• 22
  It should be noted that other organisations in the sector also carried out parallel surveys and studies.
• 23
  Section 1) sought to identify socio-demographic characteristics, section 2) professional status, section 3) working conditions, section 4) the importance and significance of tango as an activity, section 5) the relationships between individuals and organisations that enable the activity to flourish, and section 6) assessments and suggestions.
• 24
  In addition to these planning and diagnostic meetings, we also occasionally hold informational meetings about the survey with both official authorities and industry representatives. On the one hand, there were meetings with representatives of the “Consejo Federal de Culturas” (Federal Council of Cultures), and we participated in the “Regional Diagnostic Sectoral Rounds” organised by the Ministry of Culture of the Nation. On the other hand, we held dissemination and training meetings with organisations in the sector to address concerns about how to answer the survey.
• 25
  As Karina Mauro observes “...art labour markets are strongly influenced by distinctive and not strictly reproducible qualities of workers” (Mauro, 2020: 12).
• 26
  It should be clarified that while the survey included certain gender issues in a crosscutting manner throughout the questionnaire, its main objective was not to specifically address gender issues.
• 27
  In previous works I have addressed some of these organisational processes, especially in relation to the activity carried out by milongas in the city of Buenos Aires, see Morel (2017, 2023, 2024).
• 28
  Let us point out that authority in knowledge practice is not always shared since, on certain occasions, it is we the experts who make the final decisions and/or recognise ourselves as the authors of the research work. It is worth highlighting two examples in relation to writing: on the one hand, the book written in relation to the final study of the survey was in charge of “us” as a team of professionals and, on the other, in the case of this article, although it is nourished by a wealth of previous debates and reflections with the interlocutors in the field, it was not assumed through a joint writing, but has been elaborated in a personal way.

Data Availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

References

• ÁLVAREZ VEINGUER, Aurora; ARRIBAS LOZANO, Alberto y DIETZ, Gunther (Eds.). 2020. Investigaciones en movimiento. Etnografías colaborativas, feministas y decoloniales Buenos Aires, Clacso.
• ARDÉVOL, Elisenda; ESTALELLA, Adolfo; DOMÍNGUEZ, Daniel. 2008. “La mediación tecnológica en la práctica etnográfica”. En: ARDÉVOL, Elisenda; ESTALELLA, Adolfo; DOMÍNGUEZ, Daniel (coord.). La mediación tecnológica en la práctica etnográfica España, Ankulegi, pp. 9-30.
• ARRIBAS LOZANO, Alberto. 2015. “Antropología colaborativa y movimientos sociales. Construyendo ensamblajes virtuosos entre sujetos en proceso” . Revista de Antropología Social, 19: 59-73
• ARRIBAS LOZANO, Alberto. 2020. “Saberes en movimiento. Reciprocidad, co-presencia, análisis colectivo y autoridad compartida en investigación”. AIBR. Revista de Antropología Iberoamericana. 15(2): 331–356.
• AVELLAR DE MUNIAGURRIA, Lorena. 2018. “Introdução”. Políticas da cultura. Tránsitos, encontros y militancia na construcao de uma política nacional. Sao Paulo, Humanitas, pp. 21-45.
• AVELLAR DE MUNIAGURRIA, Lorena. 2020. “Los primeros a parar y los últimos a volver”: los trabajadores de la cultura en Brasil en tiempos de COVID-19”. Kera Yvoty: reflexiones sobre la cuestión social, 5 (número especial): 113-119. https://doi.org/10.54549/ky.5e.2020.113
  » https://doi.org/10.54549/ky.5e.2020.113
• BOLSTANSKI, Luc y CHIAPELLO, Eve. 1999 [2002]. El nuevo espíritu del capitalismo. Madrid, Akal.
• BOURDIEU, Pierre. 1988. “Espacio social y poder simbólico”. Cosas Dichas Barcelona, Gedisa, pp. 127-142.
• BOURDIEU, Pierre. 1996. [1993]. “Espíritus del Estado. Génesis y estructura del campo” burocrático. Revista Sociedad, 8: 5-29.
• CAPASSO, Verónica; CAMEZZANA, Daniela; MORA, Sabrina y SÁEZ, Mariana. 2020. “Las artes escénicas en el contexto del ASPO: Demandas, iniciativas, políticas y horizontes en la danza y el teatro”. Question/Cuestión, 2 (66). https://doi.org/10.24215/16696581e470
  » https://doi.org/10.24215/16696581e470
• CARENZO, Sebastián; FERNÁNDEZ ÁLVAREZ, María Inés.; CASTRONOVO, Alioscia; GIGLIARELLI, Elisa. 2019. “Extensión en Colabor: la producción de prácticas autogestionadas de formación para la gestión colectiva del trabajo.” +E: Revista de Extensión Universitaria, 9(11): 151-170. httphttps://doi.org/10.14409/extension.v9i11.Jul-Dic.8748
  » https://doi.org/10.14409/extension.v9i11.Jul-Dic.8748
• COLOMA, Agustina. 2022. “Los hacedores de tango en la pandemia COVID-19. Una caracterización de quienes trabajan en el tango en Argentina.” Revista de Estudios Regionales y Mercado de Trabajo, 15, e012. https://doi.org/10.14409/extension.v9i11.Jul-Dic.8748
  » https://doi.org/10.14409/extension.v9i11.Jul-Dic.8748
• COLOMA, Agustina; MOREL, Hernán; ROSS, Ingrid; ZARLENGA, Matías y CORTADA, Micaela. 2020. Papeles de trabajo: El impacto del COVID-19 en el sector del tango: actores económicos, actividades características y conexas. Disponible en https://issuu.com/afttango/docs/aftt-1er_relevamiento_federal_de_trabajadores_del_ (Consultado el 4/2/24).
  » https://issuu.com/afttango/docs/aftt-1er_relevamiento_federal_de_trabajadores_del_
• DAS, Veena. 1995. Critical Events: An Anthropological Perspective on Contemporary India. Nueva Delhi, Oxford University Press.
• DEL MÁRMOL, Mariana y DÍAZ, Juliana. 2022. “Trabajo artístico y pandemia: estrategias de acción colectiva de actores y actrices de teatro en La Plata durante 2020 y 2021”. Trabajo y Sociedad, N°38, Vol. XXIII: 141-162.
• DINARDI, Cecilia; WORTMAN, Ana y MUÑOZ HERNÁNDEZ, Matías. 2023. “It’s been a roller coaster”: insights from performing artists on the COVID-19 pandemic and cultural policy”, Cultural Trends, DOI: 10.1080/09548963.2023.2227865
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2023.2227865
• ESTALELLA, Adolfo y SÁNCHEZ CRIADO, Tomás. 2020. “Acompañantes epistémicos: la invención de la colaboración etnográfica”. En: ÁLVAREZ VEINGUER, Aurora; ARRIBAS LOZANO, Alberto y DIETZ, Gunther (Eds.) Investigaciones en movimiento. Etnografías colaborativas, feministas y decol oniales Buenos Aires, Clacso, pp. 145-174.
• FERNÁNDEZ ÁLVAREZ, María Inés y CARENZO, Sebastián. 2012. “Ellos son los compañeros del CONICET: el vínculo con organizaciones sociales como desafío etnográfico.” PUBLICAR, X(12): 9–34.
• FOUCAULT, Michel. 2008. Nacimiento de la biopolítica Buenos Aires, FCE.
• FUENTES FIRMANI, Emiliano. 2020. “Operación rescate. La cultura argentina frente a la pandemia”. Revista de Gestión Cultural, Julio de 2020: 7-14.
• GASTELLU, Julia. 2014. “¿Qué preguntan los que preguntan? Una lectura etnográfica de una encuesta estatal”. Kula, N°11: 42-55.
• HARAWAY, Donna. 1995. Ciencia, cyborgs y mujeres. La reinvención de la naturaleza. Valencia, Ediciones cátedra.
• HINE, Christine. 2000. Virtual Ethnography. Londres, Sage. https://doi.10.4135/9780857020277
  » https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020277
• INFANTINO, Julieta. 2017. “De pasiones, compromisos e investigaciones de larga duración. Potencialidades y límites en una investigación colaborativa con artistas (circenses)”. PUBLICAR, N°23: 31-52.
• KATZER, Leticia y SAMPRÓN, Agustín. 2011. “El trabajo de campo como proceso. La “etnografía colaborativa” como perspectiva analítica”. Revista Latinoamericana de Metodología de la Investigación Social, Nº2. Año 1: 59-70.
• KUNST, Bojana. 2015. “Las dimensiones afectivas del trabajo artístico: la paradoja de la visibilidad.” En Rozas, Ixiar y Pujol, Quim (edi.) Ejercicios de ocupación. Afectos, vida y trabajo, Barcelona, Mercat de les flors / Institut del Teatre / Ediciones Polígrafa, pp. 126-151.
• LINS RIBEIRO, Gustavo. 2021. ““Descotidianizar” el mundo. La pandemia como evento crítico, sus revelaciones y (re)interpretaciones”. Desacatos 65: 106-123.
• LOREY, Isabell. 2008. “Gubernamentalidad y precarización de sí. Sobre la normalización de los productores y productoras culturales”. Pro ducción cultur al y prácticas instituyentes. Líneas de ruptura en la crítica institucional. Madrid, Traficantes de Sueños, pp. 57-78.
• MALO, Marta. 2004. Nociones comunes. Experiencias y ensayos entre investigación y militancia. Madrid, Traficantes de Sueños.
• MANCINI, Inés; CARAVACA, Evangelina y DIKENSTEIN, Violeta. 2021. “Hacerse un nombre.: Dilemas y tensiones en el trabajo de campo con activistas y militantes en construcción”. Runa, 42 (1): 247-264. https://dx.doi.org/10.34096/runa.v42i1.8508
  » https://doi.org/10.34096/runa.v42i1.8508
• MARCUS, George. 1995. “Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography”. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 24: 95-117.
• MAURO, Karina. 2020. “Arte y trabajo: indagaciones en torno al trabajo artístico y cultural”. Revista Latinoamericana de Antropología del Trabajo, Vol. 4, Nº8: 1-17
• MAURO, Karina. 2022. “Trabajo artístico y pandemia: precariedades estructurales, políticas públicas y estrategias de lxs trabajadorxs”. Trabajo y Sociedad Nº38, Vol. XXIII: 119-124.
• MOGUILLANSKY, Mariana. 2021. “La cultura en pandemia: de las políticas culturales a las transformaciones del sector cultural”. Ciudadanías. Revista De Políticas Sociales Urbanas, (8): 1-19.
• MOREL, Hernán. 2017. “Se armó la milonga”: acerca de las políticas, el patrimonio y los espacios de baile de tango en la ciudad de Buenos Aires”. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología, Nº27: 121-140. https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda27.2017.05
  » https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda27.2017.05
• MOREL, Hernán. 2023. “Una ley para las milongas: participación social, patrimonio cultural y políticas públicas”. Revista de Antropología Social, 32 (1): 1-11. https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/raso.81075
  » https://doi.org/10.5209/raso.81075
• MOREL, Hernán. 2024. ““Marchamos por las milongas”: activistas del patrimonio, protestas e intervenciones públicas en la Ciudad de Buenos Aires”. Campos-Revista de Antropología, 25 (1): 249-275. https://doi./10.5380/cra.v25i1.91338
  » https://doi.org/10.5380/cra.v25i1.91338
• O’DONNELL, Guillermo. 2008. “Hacia un Estado de y para la democracia”. Democracia/ Estado/Ciudadanía. Hacia un Estado de y para la Democracia en América Latina, Lima, PNUD, pp. 25-62.
• OSZLAK, Oscar y O’DONNELL, Guillermo. 1981. “Estado y políticas estatales en América Latina: hacia una estrategia de investigación”. Publicado por el Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES), Buenos Aires, Documento G.E. CLACSO/Nº4.
• PINOCHET COBOS, Carla; PETERS, Tomás y GUZMÁN, Victoria. 2021. “La crisis COVID en el sector cultural chileno: estrategias de acción colectiva y políticas culturales desde abajo”. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 78: 14-35. https://doi.org/10.7440/res78.2021.02
  » https://doi.org/10.7440/res78.2021.02
• RAPPAPORT, Joane. 2007. “Más allá de la escritura: la epistemología de la etnografía en colaboración”. Revista Colombiana de Antropología, 43: 197-229.
• SIGAUD, Lygia. 2005. “As condições de possibilidade das ocupações de terra”. Tempo Social, 17 (1): 255-280.
• SIMONETTI, Paula y CESTAU, Victoria. 2022. “Escenas y escenarios de la pandemia. Una mirada a la situación del sector artístico-cultural montevideano”. Trabajo y Sociedad, N°38, Vol. XXIII: 125-140.
• TSING, Anna. 2015. The Mushroom at the End of the World Princeton University Press.
• TROUILLOT, Michel-Rolph. 2017. Silenciando el pasado: El poder y la producción de la historia. Granada, Editorial Comares.
• TROUILLOT, Michel-Rolph. 2011. Transformaciones globales la antropología y el mundo moderno. Universidad del Cauca y CESO-Universidad de los Andes.
• VALENZUELA, Andrés. 2020. “El tango sufre los efectos del aislamiento. Hay que postergar los abrazos”, Página 12, Disponible en https://www.pagina12.com.ar/256352-hay-(Consultado el 3/2/24).
  » https://www.pagina12.com.ar/256352-hay-
• VECCHIOLI, Virginia. 2000. “Critical Events: An Anthropological Perspective on Contemporary India”, en Mana, vol. 6, N°2: 177-180.
• VERDENELLI, Juliana y WINOKUR, Julia. 2021. “Músicas y bailarinas de tango en tiempo de crisis: demandas, estrategias y desafíos”. Revista ARGUMENTOS, N°97: 191-210. https://www.doi.org/10.24275/uamxoc-d-csh/argumentos/202197-9
  » https://doi.org/10.24275/uamxoc-d-csh/argumentos/202197-9
• VISACOVSKY, Sergio. 2023. “La mirada de la esposa de Lot o lo que la antropología ha ayudado a entender la pandemia de COVID-19 (y lo que esta puede ayudar a interrogar a la antropología)”. Cuadernos de Antropología Social, N°57: 7-23. https://doi.org/10.34096/cas.i57.12764
  » https://doi.org/10.34096/cas.i57.12764
• ZARLENGA, Matías; MOREL, Hernán y COLOMA, Agustina. 2022. Estado de situación del tango en la Argentina 2020. Aspectos sociolaborales, profesionales y organizacionales. Buenos Aires, RGC Libros.

Edited by

• Chief-Editor:
  Guilherme Moura Fagundes

• Associated Editor:
  Marta Rosa Amoroso

• Associated Editor:
  Ana Claudia Duarte Rocha Marques

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  30 Mar 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  27 Feb 2024
• Accepted
  23 June 2025