This editorial is written at a moment when Iran, in the aftermath of the events of January 2026, is immersed in mourning and anger, and the country’s future appears more uncertain than ever. The question, then, is how a journal committed to scholarly standards can situate—or place—itself under such conditions. Scientific research requires degrees of composure and distance in order to make reflection and the exercise of critical thinking possible: a measured withdrawal from emotions that might otherwise render scholarly work hasty or biased and push it beyond the bounds of rigorous inquiry. Scholarly work is never a “pure” activity that can be carried out simply by ignoring affect and emotion. It must remain deeply connected to all dimensions of human life in order to maintain its relevance to human concerns, while at the same time relying on evidence to make visible the subtleties of the human condition. It is precisely these shared human concerns that undoubtedly drive the production of credible and meaningful scholarship. This seemingly paradoxical condition of both engagement with and distancing from emotion in the research process is one that every experienced researcher has encountered. Pierre Bourdieu, in his interview with Philippe Mangeot published under the title Against the Slope, remarks: “In scientific work, controlled impatience is a fundamental principle. One must be angry in order to work. But anger is not enough; one must also strive to control it.”[i] It therefore becomes necessary for a scholarly platform to champion such an approach—an endeavor that, in times of turmoil and unrest, is akin to walking on a razor’s edge.
From another perspective, under such circumstances the promotion of a scientific outlook may itself be understood as the responsibility entrusted to a scholarly platform: to stand against despair and the erosion of rationality. This is not a heroic responsibility, but rather a modest and unassuming act of resistance against the forgetting of critical thought.
The articles published in this issue each seek, in their own way, to address questions that, while rooted in broader concerns, pursue their answers through close examinations of both large-scale and everyday human behaviors and experiences—from cosmologies of paranormal healing to quotidian life in markets and apartment buildings, and from the pursuits of treasure seekers to literary efforts aimed at the formation of a hegemonic discourse.
At this critical juncture, the journal understands itself not as an individual tribune, but as a shared home for anthropologists—a home whose credibility and independence can be sustained only through the active participation, responsible critique, and professional commitment of the scholarly community. The continuation of this path is an invitation to collaboration in safeguarding a space that keeps alive the possibility of scientific reflection on the human condition, even in times marked by disruption and rupture.
Mehrdad Arabestani,
Editor, Journal of Anthropology
January 30, 2026



[i] Mangeot, Philippe. À contre-pente: entretien avec Pierre Bourdieu. Vacarme 14.1 (2001): 4-14. https://vacarme.org/article224.html