The Latin American Anthropological Association is currently an association of associations. It did not always have this form; in fact, originally it resembled more a regional network of colleagues. It is one of the associations that took part in the foundational discussions of WCAA, and is currently one of its members. As a regional association, ALA has concerns, challenges, and questions that differ from those of local or national associations. Beyond bureaucratic issues, a central question for ALA emerges in various internal discussions, shaping its role among Latin American and Caribbean anthropologies: Does ALA's political project represent its associations/anthropologies in the region in an assembly-like manner, or does it pursue its own path? The decisions made by ALA, from the most mundane ones like what expenses to incur, to the most significant ones such as the contents to be proposed at its conferences, or the conversations proposed and the colleagues invited to delve into certain topics, or the orientation of its journal; are they a result of what the majority of member associations (comprising specific individuals) think or desire? Or does ALA make decisions that are not guided by these wishes or orientations and may even contradict them, always in alignment with a defined political project set by the Association for itself? Over the past 6 years of my involvement in ALA, in this presentation, I will attempt to illustrate the challenges that ALA faces in maintaining a defined political project for itself, which does not always align with the political projects of its member associations and the anthropologies they represent.