Scholarly debates over precarity are gaining unprecedented visibility across fields. From labor insecurity forming a growing dangerous class to the existential condition of vulnerability induced by millennial capitalism, precarity has become an object of both empirical study and theoretical reflection. While European social movements have been organizing and writing about precarity from the late 1970s to today, still, from the US perspective, the term precarity might be mistakenly taken as strictly a scholarly invention. “Precarious Writings” offers an important corrective to the ways that precarity has been taken up in anthropology and cognate disciplines, addressing the specific epistemological and political limitations of existing usages and returning the concept to its overlooked grassroots history in social movement struggles in southern Europe. By returning precarity to these activist roots, this paper makes the case for the recognition of social movements as knowledge producers as well as sources of theoretical insight and innovation in their own right. By failing to recognize precarity’s development within contentious struggles, scholarly uses miss how the activist notion enables identity reformulations toward a kind of “precarity pride.” That is, the politicization of insecurity has become a source for nurturing a fluid space of political creation.

中文翻译：

---

不稳定的著作

关于不稳定的学术辩论正在跨领域获得前所未有的可见性。从劳动力不安全形成一个日益危险的阶级，到千禧年资本主义导致的脆弱性生存状况，不稳定已成为实证研究和理论反思的对象。尽管从 1970 年代后期到今天，欧洲社会运动一直在组织和撰写有关不稳定的文章，但从美国的角度来看，不稳定一词可能会被错误地视为严格的学术发明。“不稳定的著作”对人类学和同源学科中对不稳定的研究方式提供了重要的纠正，解决现有用法的特定认识论和政治局限性，并将这一概念回归到其在南欧社会运动斗争中被忽视的草根历史。通过将不稳定的状态回归到这些激进主义的根源，本文提出了将社会运动视为知识生产者以及理论洞察力和创新来源的理由。由于未能认识到不稳定在有争议的斗争中的发展，学术上的使用错过了激进主义概念如何使身份重新表述为一种“不稳定的自豪感”。也就是说，不安全的政治化已经成为培育政治创造流动空间的源泉。本文论证了将社会运动视为知识生产者以及理论洞察力和创新的来源。由于未能认识到不稳定在有争议的斗争中的发展，学术上的使用错过了激进主义概念如何使身份重新表述为一种“不稳定的自豪感”。也就是说，不安全的政治化已经成为培育政治创造流动空间的源泉。本文论证了将社会运动视为知识生产者以及理论洞察力和创新的来源。由于未能认识到不稳定在有争议的斗争中的发展，学术上的使用错过了激进主义概念如何使身份重新表述为一种“不稳定的自豪感”。也就是说，不安全的政治化已经成为培育政治创造流动空间的源泉。