A Hermeneutic Genealogy of the Postmodern in Global South Anthropology: From the Positivist Approach to the Ontological Turn. In this panel we propose to trace and reflect on the hermeneutic aspect of anthropology. We discuss the categorical understandings of what is considered as reference points and anthropological truths by analyzing the preferences in theory and methodology of Global South postmodern anthropology. Employing Jürgen Habermas’ classification framework - anti-modern postmodernity, paleo-conservative postmodernity, neo-conservative postmodernity, and ethical-critical postmodernity - our discussion examines country-specific cases. For instance, it is evident that Ecuadorian anthropology has transitioned from paleo-conservative with its positivist paradigm, as expressed in evolutionary classification schemes, which ranked populations from the “most savage” to the “most civilised” to justify the need for “civilisation” and the incorporation of populations into the nation-state until the 1960s. Subsequently, a critical anti-modern stance that questioned colonialism came to the fore. This shift led to significant development of a postcolonial current in understandings of reference and anthropological truth which remained until the eruption of Ecuadorian indigenismo. We further consider movements and demands for reparative justice among Afro-descendants in Caribbean countries like Haiti, Barbados and Jamaica, as well as the emblematic South Africa case. These reimaginings of alternative realities thought from the Global South, were viewed with their historical particularism, as unique plural trajectories. With the incidence of cultural relativism, postulated from historical particularism, it is understood that each culture is valuable in its own terms. Here, one can argue for an ethical-critical postmodernity, especially in the relationship and redefinition of terms like “race” and culture. Other paradigms are related to cultural ecology, structural functionalism, and structuralism where issues of adaptation, social organization, and the sphere of socio-linguistics are important. Then, neo-Marxism gained momentum, in the variants of the analysis of the capitalist world-system. The influence of dependency theory and the critiquing of colonial anthropology was also important. However, interethnic relations studies preceded. Decolonisation of anthropology in the Global South, particularly from Latin American thought and Afrocentric postcolonial studies, like the critique of Cheikh Anta Diop to colonial anthropology, are worthy of mention. This interrogation of Western ethnocentric anthropology opened up new spaces throughout the 20th century. This allowed for a rethinking from an ethical, theoretical-epistemological perspective which focused on new approaches to African diasporas, from countries still known as the “Third World”. Later, anthropology began to focus on contemporary political situations, such as Latin American indigenous and/or peasant activism. For instance, we include various country examples, with a strong emphasis on the Ecuadorian case, paying attention to the politics from a post-structural theory and from a critical anthropology lens, we focus on the periods from 1980 to 1990s. We draw on multi-sited ethnography work highlighting political-economic entanglements, internal colonialisms, and global connections. In this panel we discuss the progressive break with the nature-culture dualism, which will pave the way for the ontological turn in anthropology.