comparative relativism

Symposium on an Impossibility

Casper Bruun Jensen, Barbara Herrnstein Smith, G. E. R. Lloyd, Martin Holbraad, Andreas Roepstorff, Isabelle Stengers, Helen Verran, Steven D. Brown, Brit Ross Winthereik, Marilyn Strathern, Bruce Kapferer, Annemarie Mol, Morten Axel Pedersen, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Matei Candea, Debbora Battaglia, Roy Wagner

Introduction: Contexts for a Comparative Relativism

There is only one method . . . the comparative method. And that [method] is impossible. — E. E. Evans-­Pritchard

This aim of this symposium is to place in unlikely conjunction the two terms comparison and relativism. On the one hand, comparison, in the most general sense, involves the investigation of discrete contexts to elucidate their similari- ties and differences. Comparative methods have been widely used in many social science disciplines, including history, linguistics, sociology, and anthropology.

The conference out of which this Common Knowledge sym- posium emerged was held in September 2009 at the IT University of Copenhagen and was organized by Casper Bruun Jensen, Morten Axel Pedersen, and Brit Ross Winthereik. Common Knowledge 17:1 DOI 10.1215/0961754X-2010-029 © 2011 by Duke University Press

1

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/17/1/1/397707/CK171_01Jensen.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 on 27 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/17/1/1/397707/CK171_01Jensen.pdf 1 Routledge and Kegan Paul, Paul, Kegan and Routledge . Common Knowledge 2 David Bloor, David contributions. numerous these across cut that threads some thematic highlight to be only can lowed by a set of commentaries and then a response. The job of this introduction four major pieces Smith, Viveiros (by de Castro, Strathern, and Stengers) is fol these of Each contribution. her makes comparison, multilateral and unilateral between difference the to attention her with Stengers, Isabelle that level this on is It themselves. relativization and comparison of methods and strategies the rather is concern central Of integrated. be may relativization and parison com of methods the which in framework a develop to wants contributors the ent, incomparable, or incommensurable traits. or incommensurable ent, incomparable, involves the assumption that contexts exhibit, or may exhibit, radically differ anthropology, and more recently in science and technology studies (STS), usually On the other hand, relativism, as a tendency, stance, or working method in social comparison can be can made comparison ence and similarity depends on a preestablished “outside”differ of observation perspective the fromthat which suggesting by stance this of limits the indicates shared and not between, for example, orcultures practices. Relativism, however, impossible to establish measures that enable the researcher to determine what is is it otherwise respects; crucial some in least at alike, as objects their treat to that a view from nowhere- Western academics and Amerindian shamans WesternAmerindian and academics “comparison of comparisons,” in order to relativize what different peoples a encourage and imply to Strathern, Marilyn and Castro de Viveiros Eduardo instance for contributors, other by taken is relativism comparative hand, other the On idea. the up takes Smith Herrnstein Barbara example, for that, sense this in is It purpose. good to contrasted and compared be can contexts those widely in different personal, historical, and institutional contexts; moreover, that varying effects, and functions, havemultiple uses, these that and kinds various in comes relativism that imply some to by understood is relativism Comparative of term. keyits Thecontributionsuses here productive basic and delineate two productive. be can indeed, and, thing bad no is paradox or incongruence that relativism and methodologicalbetween these analytical points, entry the term comparative (London: (London: Imagery Social and Knowledge A symposium focusing on such a term must begin from the assumption assumption the from begin must term a such on focusing symposium A 1976 is likely to seem incongruent or paradoxical. incongruent to seem likely is ).

— ­in-

and, of course, relativism is skeptical of the possibility ofis and, of skeptical the relativism possibility course, particular can ­particular be established. Given the deep divide 1

— Comparative studies are required required are studies Comparative

compare things “for.” comparethings None of

—

say, - - - - on 27 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/17/1/1/397707/CK171_01Jensen.pdf York: Basic Books, Books, York: Basic (New Schoepf Grundfest Brooke and Jacobson Claire anthropology should be put on basis.”a anthropology “broad inductive has established the uncertainty of the factual. of the uncertainty the established has research STS Indeed, periods. historical across and within as well as munities, com scientific across and within have laws natural supposed that ferentstatus research has repeatedly shown the variability of scientific methodsand the dif STS sciences, human the in poststructuralism and heyday ofthe structuralism idea the take of both that scientific and method scientific granted.law Sincefor the scientism of ­ Lévi- about both interesting most is what meantime, the in perspectives of STS gence emer the given and structuralism, over controversy the from distance present fearlessness that has more than occasionally been regarded as negative. Given our ­ Lévi- known, one well- thoroughof study number a small of proving thus cases, thatthelast in analysis many study “to whether as cases ain superficialandthe in anthropologist endineffective way; or [else] the of limitto oneself to a dilemma the formulated ­Strauss possibilities two ( universally” valid is law this experiment, ­performed well- a by proved been “has law scientific a when it:put Durkheim science.”As of “laws the was point reference whose Durkheim, of that with approach this had raised for anthropology. for raised had Lévi- as question same the roughly physics modern for posed Galison support.” between the ofstructures diverse societies and that these were “lacking empirical correlations” “alleged merely of full was it that was anthropology earlier with Radcliffe- R. A. for that notes He ogy. anthropol of figures ancestral various forheld comparative the of notion the ume In the chapter “Social Structure” of his classic text text classic ofhis Structure” “Social chapter the In Models and 2 complexity and fullness their all in processes of natural had has as representation the its goal One tradition and the other toward logic: toward other the and image toward oriented one knowledge, making of modes distinct two exhibits . Claude Lévi- Claude 1 In his magisterial work magisterial his In ),Claude Lévi- done experiment is sufficient to make ato make ( demonstration” is sufficient ­done experiment 2 In the place of these spurious analytical practices, Lowie argued that practices,Lowie that place argued the In of spurious these analytical Comparisons Strauss, ­Strauss, Strauss had no fear of seeking inspiration in sciences,the natural a 1963 — ), ), Durkheim the other Lowie, with one with associated 287 Structural Anthropology Structural Strauss considers the different status that comparison and and comparison that status considers different ­Strauss the Strauss and the oncritique that ofground is structuralism – 88 , quoting Lowie. quoting , 4 According to physics Galison, anthropology) (like Image and Logic and Image — the production of images of such such of images of production the , trans. trans. , Brown and Robert Lowie the problem the Lowie Robert and ­Brown ( 3 1997 Microphysics of 4 Lowie. 1997 . . Lévi- Peter Galison, Galison, Peter ). (vol Anthropology Structural ), the STS historian Peter historian STS the ), Strauss, ­Strauss, 288 3 ­ Lévi- ). Considering these these Considering ). (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, Structural Anthropology Structural Strauss contrasts Image and Logic: A Material Culture Culture Material A Logic: and Image 288 ). As is well well is As ). — Strauss ­Strauss Lévi------, 288 , quoting quoting ,

Jensen • Introduction: Contexts for Comparative Relativism 3 on 27 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/17/1/1/397707/CK171_01Jensen.pdf 5 . Common Knowledge 4 Lévi- Strauss, ­Strauss, Lévi- of the same kind,” whichgath is a demand that the cannot be met on by ethnography. Thus, relies that physics) in eringtradition of large logic amounts of the to data. Yet such data(similar are acceptable regime “insofar as they are all statistical meant was that Durkheim’s demand for scientific laws could be met onlyunder a effect. These images are presented, and defended, as as defended, and presented, are images These effect. or entity new a for evidence as serve can picture single a that clarity sort of confusion between the procedures used to the sort . procedures ofbetween establish . confusion . models.” should bemethod the to comparative “sought in some anthropologists offidelity theorize and model, he is on the logicians’ side. He indeed pondered whether the strictly inductive means, untainted by theory. With regard to the necessity to Lévi- experimentalists, goldenevent Galison’s which tocase.But establish his with unlike image- logic- the But results. experimental of analysis their do not assumptions enter theoretical that of registration” ensures systems their ( class” same equivalent to information deduced details aboutfrom partial many events of the relevant ways all in is detail about event a full single rendered“information with one for the stability of the many,” while the experimentalist relies on the idea that between andexperimentalists theorists. as The theorist “sacrificesof the detail theof thought commonly more is logic and image between competition The of a particle or effect. ( or effect. of a particle for existence the arguments of data to masses statistical make aggregate machines picturing) (rather These counting than logictronic circuits. coupled counters in elec has electronic used which the “logic tradition,” called have I what juxtapose to want I tradition, mimetic this Against world. the in occur they as things of form the preserve to purport shows science.”of analysis For“laws Galison’s what objective in grounded become to unable is nature, than rather culture is matter subject whose discipline pretive The ences problemwould that be expected. is notas inter an anthropology, that differ the not are they perhaps though anthropologists, among and physicists Like the advocates the Like of image- the Lévi- argument, his in doesemerge that difference found.must invariably are deal The central is that, scientists social which with those to comparable uncertainties sciences natural cases (so- orists hold that “anything can happen once,” for which reason singular exemplary Structural Anthropology Structural Strauss eventually proposed that the way forward “lies in the selection of selection the in “lies forward way the that proposed eventually ­Strauss There are, of course, differences between these parallel debates among among debates parallel these between differences course, of are, There — research much does STS as other ­called 20 ). The image- The ). golden events golden , 28 19 8 . ) Strauss mixes elements ­Straussmixes thatGalison’s physicists separate. Strauss does not purport to establish his case through through case his establish to purport not does ­Strauss ) remain dubious claimants to epistemic authority. to epistemic dubious claimants ) remain based experimentalists hold that the “passivity of “passivity the holdthat experimentalists ­based based tradition in physics,­based in tradition Lévi- — is that even within the “hardest” of “hardest” the even within is that mimetic based, statistics- ­based,

—

y e h t - Strauss seeks a seeks ­Strauss oriented the ­oriented 5 What he he What ­based - - - - on 27 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/17/1/1/397707/CK171_01Jensen.pdf statistical dream.” statistical even if they are said to be of opposite senses, is a coarse and approximate dream, a or haunted as they are by Nietzsche’s warning that “to dream of two equal forces, would have no truck with comparison (at least not as commonly defined),informed because of its paradoxical character: he enjoins us to study singular cases table. His own advice has not been followed up, at least not in the social sciences, the same scale as the model or to be on constructed a scale” different ‘case,’ the patternedbe to so includeas elements will which either are which on 6. events relations. their that raises all manner of relativistic questions about elements, scales, models, and 7 can be regarded as relativistic in that it may “lessen dramatic differences” and cre and differences” dramatic “lessen may equivalences.” it “immoral ate that in relativistic as regarded be can by comparison other with “massive state- undermining our ability, for example, to understand the Holocaust as a unique Holocaust unique a the as ability, our for understand toexample, undermining ison of anything with anything else, relativism is seen as overly tolerant overly as seen is relativism else, anything with anything of ison compar the enable to capacity its In ways. crudest the in all, at do they when odology in the social sciences, the problems are encountered at an elevated elevated an level at encountered are problems the sciences, social the in odology (or comparison even comparativism While Relativism: twin”? “evil its calls Smith Herrnstein Barbara that theory might it emerge? Is our only alternative to comparison the method and phantom tial for comparison of a different order in such a project; and if so, where and how might exemplify, show,a What demonstration unique or prove? Is there a poten follow. to seen be may neutrality” undesirable “politically and/or paradox temological but renderalso heterogeneous. homogeneouseither In epis case, ofstates affairs methodrender and/or can theory heterogeneous homogeneous, states of affairs ogy, historiography, and other social sciences. Relativism is a versatile threat: its anthropol in research to applied when accusation an than term descriptive a Strauss’s advice to advice the ­Strauss’s at at of Chicago Press, Press, of Chicago dote,”in Anec the and “Counterhistory Stephen Greenblatt, and .

For a purportedly For a purportedly Lévi- all

levels, including that of morality. Indeed, as Smith shows, relativism — The questions­ that Lévi- — 9 Strauss, ­Strauss, Practicing New Historicism

When, as Smith has observed, histories of the Holocaust contextualize it it contextualize Holocaust the of histories observed, has Smith as When, the level of theoretical rationale. Relativism, however, faces objections objections however, faces Relativism, rationale. theoretical of level the that that somehow count can as general demonstrations. Comparison’s “Evil Structural Anthropology Structural 2000 6 post humanities 8 ). But what might count as a golden event in the social sciences? sciences? social the in event golden a as count might what But structuralist application of Lévi- application structuralist , see Catherine Gallagher Gallagher , see Catherine (Chicago: University 10 Comparison and relativism often come together,often relativism and Comparison Strauss raised have remained, day, to this intrac , T 288 win” – 89 . ­sponsored slaughters,” the comparison tout court - Tomlinson (London: Athlone, Athlone, (London: Tomlinson 8 9 10 Press, University Duke NC: ham, . . .

Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Smith, Herrnstein Barbara Gilles Deleuze, Deleuze, Gilles Smith, Smith, ) is problematic as a meth a as problematic is ) Scandalous Knowledge Scandalous 7 Studies of this kind Nietzsche and Philosophy and Nietzsche — a proposal a proposal

— (Dur Knowledge Scandalous 1983

, golden is less 21

2006 — . ), ), 43

as as ------), ), . 3 . , trans. Hugh Hugh trans. ,

- Jensen • Introduction: Contexts for Comparative Relativism 5 on 27 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/17/1/1/397707/CK171_01Jensen.pdf

Common Knowledge 6 zonian Spirits,” Viveiros de Castro discusses, along these lines, an account pre account an lines, these along discusses, Castro de Viveiros Spirits,” zonian comparisons. of comparing way a It is domains.” between analogies perceiving of modes indigenous and “anthropological contrasting of amenable to translative comparison.” For him, comparative relativism is a means subject, anthropological an as but puzzle epistemological an “notas relativism as “fieldanthropology thought.” social geophilosophy,” Redefining he approaches ontological autodetermination” “peoples’ of and a step toward support “permanent decolonizationin move of a as shamanism, Amerindian on work, own his understands Castro de Viveiros “multinaturalism.” ofCastro’sidea de Viveiros Few ideas could be further from Atran’s “psychic unity of mankind” than Eduardo Multinaturalism culture.” and behavior thought, human all underlying mechanisms mental evolved, of form “innate, the universal in of mankind,” unity a“psychic evolutionaryporary psychologists and cognitive anthropologists see evidence of contem hereher in clear on Atran, remarks makes Scott as Smith Indeed, cepts. con positivist fully of array an kicking, and alive remains, there science, social and Smith may seem to be flogging a dead horse. Yetin large regions of academic tosuch younger academics, documentation the offered and analysis by Stengers who were trained almost andentirely relativistconstructivist within idioms; and than ourselves of have we they are. image Of course, the by now there like are more social no anthropologists and are STS we researchers that rather, is, it assume; we than “us” morelike are Azande the notthat Itis so. equivalently judged be WesternWest. isjudged Zandeifmagic context, that irrational, physicsIn will notions of such as rational agency are properly applicable nowhere, not practices even the in and beliefs the that and peoplemay everywhere be on assessed thatbasis, Stengers capacity instead that suggests human universal a is agency rational that argues Mohanty Whereas same. not upshot is the but the tolerance, against knowledge. genuine credit and obtain to others cultural of our capacity in this account, by privileging Western modes of knowing and by patronizing the is absurd.craft By on irreducibleinsisting difference, relativism ends up, at least torical: he really sees as dupes, the Azande since “we” after all know that witch recognition his Mohanty takes of differences rhe to among be strictly cultures for finds instance, Evans- Mohanty, Satya scholar cosmology.Yet literary Zande the within sense makes apparently an broad- opens with Azande Evans- kind. any of comparisons to intolerance its be to said is however, of relativism threat the circumstances, other event.In In a recent paper, “The Crystal Forest: Notes on the Ontology of Ama of Ontology the on Notes Forest: Crystal paper,“The recent a In Stengers’sarguments Isabelle with converges criticism this To degree, a ­Pritchard’s remarks both “intolerant” and patronizing. minded presumption ­minded Pritchard’s famous study of the the of study ­Pritchard’sfamous

—

that witchcraft witchcraft that ------on 27 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/17/1/1/397707/CK171_01Jensen.pdf mami people’s exist.” to mami right different natures (hence the term multinaturalism term the (hence natures different in but cultures different notin live we that suggest indeed does comparison of Westernand ways compares Amerindian de Castro Viveiros which The way in jaguar eating blood, the jaguar knows itself to be a manioc human beer.drinking who don’t “drink” it remain with the eyes of ghosts and see nothing. see and of ghosts eyes the with it remain who don’t “drink” Those . . . times. many many, tree Yakoanahi the of powder the inhale To you must dust. them able be see to of sparkling specks as tiny as are they continue to dance today. They look like human beings so butand theytimes primordial the since shamans for danced have spirits The history and world’s structure the of shaman, Yanomami a Kopenawa, Davi by sented abouton basis the of Whites spirits,” Kopenawa is being equally and Whites to “aboutspirits speaking worldview. In Yanomami the of ism: Kopenawa, he argues, is not simply describing somerelativ epistemologicalcomparative in exercise an itself as contentspassage this reads Castro de Viveiros is unsettling and difficult to understand: to difficult and unsettling is of world as a human being sees it. sees being world human a as the sees and human itis that believes entity living each ontology Yanomami in know, to reason have journal this of readers As culture. one only but natures many are there ontology Yanomami in onenature, butonly cultures many are world Yanomami senting Yanomami consensual beliefs as a worldview; rather he is expressing the pre not is shaman the Kopenawa’s account, understands he As form. specific a of perspectivism is cosmology Amerindian that argues he and , perspectivism heis prefers term the designation: that resists Castro de But Viveiros extreme. the to relativism say,takes might one project, his Thus us. for and Yanomami Heseeksto find what modehave, entitiescan the of for existenceboth spiritual of the name the in Westerners and Yanomami between differences the erase to golden event? ethnographical of an possibility the trate Yanomami and Westerners be compared. scene can illus or Might confirm this Yanomami cosmology, the differential basis on which the evaluative capacity of 11 Notes on the Ontology of Amazonian Spirits,” Spirits,” Amazonian of Ontology the on Notes 9 . 2 .

— ( Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, “The Crystal Forest: Forest: Crystal “The Castro, de Viveiros Eduardo 2 “psychic unity of mankind” or of of principle. mankind” any other “psychicuniversal unity purportedly 007

a Yanomami shaman. Doing so he is elucidating, from the perspective of perspective the from elucidating, is he so Doing shaman. Yanomami a It should be clear that, for Viveiros de Castro, the question is how is question the Castro, de Viveiros for that, clear be should It ): ): — 153 a narrative that doublesa narrative “as and proudan indignant for claim the Yano – 72 , at at 153 objectively from inside it inside from objectively . 11 The description we get of Yanomami cosmology 12 Thus, when a Yanomami man or woman sees a Inner Asia . Contrary to the Western idea that there

12 2004 Ontologies,” Amerindian in Subjects into Objects of Transformation The spectives: ). Once we come to see that we . See Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, “Exchanging Per “Exchanging Castro, de Viveiros Eduardo See ): ): 463 –

— 84

. heis doing work the Common Knowledge Common not - - - -

10 . 3 (Fall

- Jensen • Introduction: Contexts for Comparative Relativism 7 on 27 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/17/1/1/397707/CK171_01Jensen.pdf Fictions of Anthropology,” Anthropology,” of Fictions 13 ( 1987

. Common Knowledge 8 Marilyn Strathern, “Out of Context: The Persuasive Persuasive The Context: of “Out Strathern, Marilyn ): ): 251 – 81 . with Smith’s. After all, she is comparing (or rather, contrasting) two basic disposi basic two contrasting) rather, (or oftions Western academic discourse comparing is she all, After Smith’s. with dif their for variousness. account their from and learn to as well as ferences, understand, analyze, to is it important how see to come live different in rather or natures more than, different in we also than, cultures, for dealing with the unstable relations between theory and data, between the con the between data, and theory between ceptual and the empirical. Her strategy relations is to pay special attention to unstable “the point the of with dealing for means analytical concerns argument however, level, her second a On of conflict. analyses anthropological about and Papua contemporary Hagen, New Guinea, on argumentthat, one level. is about patterns of practice social changing Mt. in License,” ern’sit explicitly. treats Under shean “Binary unfolds article title the not). (or interesting regarded is as or comparison explanation, explanandum, whyan explanandum an and as what count as an can explicator.what also Those categoriesinterpretation, as have or an fact effect as as wellcount on can what deeply influence will discipline any of fictions” “persuasive or categories conventional compare we what about Clearly,questions P heritage. that from anthropology freeing for resource a as consulted be analysis ogy as “the most of Kantian all the Humanities,” one might suggest that Smith’s anthropol of Castro’sdeidentification Viveiros Given times. past and cultures andalien beliefs of theinterpret practices on cannot howor can we specifically bear indeed, that, incongruences conceptual vast with deals Smith’s,that than to say, Strange perhaps respect, anthropologists’ projectthe narrower this is, in largely take the legacyconstructivist for granted, in a way which Smith does not. in engage symposium) this to contributing anthropologist another Strathern, Marilyn debates (like deViveiros that itCastro must particular besaid the that peoples.” former the between andAmazonian other the Onhand, than lectuals intel Western liberal and Nazis the between . . . common in morethings nitely infi are “there forcefully: point, this puts he As ofdifferences. set moreradical much a exposing is Western readers, to cosmology Amazonian explaining gist and her Viveiros deas an tworeaders anthropolo Castro those dispositions, find theory and pretation, inter analysis, data, as count what influences comparison of scale the observes, of artial what 13 Viveirosde Castro’s approach, tois comparedifficult multinaturalism, his The contributions to this symposium illustrate this situation, and Strath and situation, this illustrate symposium this to contributions The to compare, and in every comparative analysis. Moreover, as Strathern Moreover, Strathern as analysis. comparative every in and compare, to Comparisons, Current Anthropology Current Changing — to which we should add that those scales fluctuate. The fluctuate. scales those addthat should we which to , 28 . 3 Scales — and thus, and no thus, matter how much at odds she for are wrapped up in every choice choice every in up wrapped are ------on 27 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/17/1/1/397707/CK171_01Jensen.pdf and related approaches (including Smith’s). (including approaches related and cal). STS researchers have drawn a similar conclusion from actor-theoreti fully and equally both as (as well empirical fully and equally both are empirical the and theoretical the that sheargues and objects,” their shewrites, at same level the exist practices:“Ideas as contingent as are on themselveson as data be to interrelations between what are presumed to be concepts and what are presumed spectivalism is the “antonym” of perspectivism. “antonym” the is spectivalism of many worlds and one capacity to a take viewpoint.” If so, she concludes, per grounded in one world and many viewpoints; impliesperspectivism an ontology out Euro- acts “toperspectivalist be nesians: Mela and Amerindians the of perspectivism the and Mol, and Law by criticized and defined as perspectivalism, ofbetween itself.” Here distinction a she draws diverse enactments of knowledge,” then “multiplicity is perspectivalism’s elicit critiquethat contexts practical overlapping invariably but numerous the in exists . . . “multiplicity contends, Strathern For if, evident. are agreement, basic that on actors nature which all haveBut perspectives. their differences, despite their the these approaches share the premise that there noexists resultant single, stable, the underlying deploy to and generates.” acting” ofperspectivalism that fragmentation “language All the and against ory knowing of ways in inherent tiplicity’ Mol“the ‘mul of to John ontheorize Law comments efforts the and Annemarie Strathern’s consider to interesting especially is it which, of light In actors. ing (and concepts our chang well too) humans as as thus nonhumans historically as a social scientist may face may scientist social a science.) social relativist and comparativist between gap the bridge emerge to will or practice atheory that “provocation,”“unlikeliness” the given and data. (Hence Strathern’s remarking, on the title thatof symposium, is a this plines rely on crucially the work divisionsof such binary as that between theory disci as and ofthe between both within proper phenomena.scaling Distinctions regardedwhat be may constrains networkthat of disciplinary a part is scientist social the preference, that ofclear subjective matter a is she makes take to turn observation of Althoughthis Strathern’s might suggest choice thatthe of which move in the direction of “theorizing as reflexivity” of “elucidating ethnography.” well as could anew,says, she material this engaging Hagen: Mt. in arriving on ferent routes.” The example she offers is based on revisiting her own experiences dif down lead could analysis terms between a “distinction at which bifurcation” Human Human Values Post-of Consequences the 14 . Christopher Gad and Casper Bruun Jensen, “On “On Jensen, Bruun Casper and Gad Christopher Still, it is by no means Strathern’s argument that the problems of choice ofproblems the that argument Strathern’s means no by is it Still, —

25 are resolvable at the level of epistemology. In her analysis, theories theories heranalysis, epistemology.oflevelIn atthe resolvable are . 1 ( 2010 ): ): 55 ­ANT,” – 80 .

— Science, Technology, and Technology, and Science,

the issues of analytical or empirical scale, and of and scale, empirical or analytical of issues the 14 American pluralism, ontologically pluralism, ­American It is conventional in STS to view view to STS in conventional is It ­network theory ------

Jensen • Introduction: Contexts for Comparative Relativism 9 on 27 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/17/1/1/397707/CK171_01Jensen.pdf

Common Knowledge 10 STS of stance the do not tend Whereas operate with scale. to deal same on the gists ontologies. But of the micro-ontologies STS and the ontologies that anthropolo different formations, referred to as Euro- enable they as between de comparisons Viveiros Castro and madebyStrathern moveis analogous An them. shape that things the project)and technological or relations of concepts (or “micro- such as that of Law and Mol, is to render and, thus, symmetrical comparable the move research, of STS signature Aof comparison. scales totheir extends them and in the present context we ought to compare them. But the difference between scientific domain “depends upon, or at least implies, eliminating the charms of charms the eliminating implies, or at least upon, “depends domain scientific sons.” A reductive ambition central is because, likewise as Stengers the explains, compari making for instrument an into successfully turned be could therefore that and studied phenomena the to belonging “something from arise to seen rather, but, “notimposed” are facts that ensure that objects nonhuman the are of what are hunches,initially suppositions, and fictions. Central tothis endeavor ing skepticism” is her term for the efforts that scientists put into facts making out of society. “Conquerskepticism ingrained the against but Stengers argues, also, of nature recalcitrance the notagainst only hadstruggle to scientists other and zonian zonian Stengers discusses. In her study of Galileo, Stengers argues that his aim was pre was aim his that fact, incontestable to produce an cisely argues Stengers Galileo, of study her In discusses. Stengers Isabelle that disciplines natural-science the in those markedlyfrom ences differ The status of fictions, comparisons,and factsthein humanitiesand social sci P sciences. andsocial the human in by academics produced fictions persuasive the together tying in empirically, and analytically both work, stant whatStill, Strathern’s article chiefly shows is how scales of comparison do con argument. similar a make might one comparison, and relativism conjoining of of concern that her contribution matter addresses. In defense overall of the by the “sheer provocation” encompassed” are moves “both since point, the miss would generaliza “wild on based is it that tions” or to object bring to up “specific be counter-points.” would it Sheinsists also that easy this objection how notes Strathern respectively. forms, emic and etic take anthropology and of STS naturalisms multi the that say might one still, here; differences and overlaps the capture by and and Melanesian jaguars Amerindian human- ersuasive Fictions and the — One might say that we are faced here of kinds with two distinct relativism, About her own account, which moves from Melanesia to the Balkans, Balkans, the to Melanesia from moves which account, own her About jaguars relativism of kind its ­centered precise (in this sense) on focus how agency is attributed to pigs , the stance taken by these anthropologists leads them to a more a to them leads anthropologists these by taken stance the , Capacity to — might grant agency to Melanesian Melanesian to agency grant might ­ontologies,” hospital such as that of a particular not Object American, Amerindian, or Amerindian, Melanesian­American, a persuasive fiction. To do so, Galileo

people . Classical terms do not precisely pigs or Ama ------­ on 27 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/17/1/1/397707/CK171_01Jensen.pdf tings set by and in generated are turn in events those ways, new in expressive made establishment of new facts is dependent on events through which phenomena are actors nonhuman of part the on little place the in practices of scientists, natural the development of one capacity conversation.” and Poststructuralist Postmodernisms in Peace,” of 15 interests.” while ers rendered equivalent, she argues that thenever are pointpractices that is issymbiosis to createattaining for precondition a that relationsInsisting with oth symbiosis.” as such events, connecting about also only,but prey and predators about not “is all, after ecology, us, reminds she As practices. of ecology new a ofemergence the to related as challenges the view might we that suggests also fade away. may flourish to practices that relativism encourages and sustains, the specific conditionsthat enabledthese the of climate flexibility are generated; in and, scientific practices that ventures be) need (if resist.” and feel, think, to practitioners its motivates what practice, each for matters what determine flexibility ofsystemic way the in standing attachments tical have prac been will are the diverging, though, eradicated, all What themselves. transforming flexibly practices of speak “to replies, possible,” she always is “It course. due in place take practices existing of transformation and adaptation which one, in normal a is situation the makers) that policy among and analyses STS in (found both notion the Sherejects catastrophe.” “ecological an to akin as situation this views Stengers ofpractices, ecology an of necessity the for ing machine” that renders the divergence of scientific practicesimpossible. Argu “equivalency- vast a as functions economy knowledge the Stengers, “the general wisdom will prevail that one should not object too much.” Thus, which forin situation a creates science industrialized throughput,” “high and ods agreement.”colleagues’ their and meth compelling Byon standardized focusing objections colleagues’ their resisting facts their have to duty the by mobilized mobilized by competing interests,”industrial Stengers writes, no“will longer be to “say No,” and therefore to are produce as directly they good science. “Scientists and practices of the “knowledge economy,” is destroying scientists’ own capacities No. say to capacity . Isabelle Stengers, “Beyond Conversation: The Risks Risks The Conversation: “Beyond Stengers, Isabelle

— Although deeply concerned about the future of scientific practices, Stengers competitive and comparative particular very through itis words, other In Stengers argues, however, that contemporary science, infused by the values

the constructions of constructions scientiststhe continuing to diverge to continuing Process and Difference: Between Cosmological Cosmological Between Difference: and Process 15 But if,Stengers’s in account, “charmsof the conversation” have , ed. Catherine Keller Keller Catherine ed. , : “each needs the other in order to pursue its own own its orderpursue to in other “eachthe : needs — object” “to capacity the

—

in which in nonhuman entities the obtain Press, Press, York New of University State (Albany: Daniell Anne and 2 002 ), ), 235 — — – 55 attachments that that attachments is crucial. If the the If crucial. is , at ,

235 producing ­producing . - - - - -

Jensen • Introduction: Contexts for Comparative Relativism 11 on 27 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/17/1/1/397707/CK171_01Jensen.pdf 16

. Common Knowledge 12 Stengers, “Beyond Conversation,” Conversation,” “Beyond Stengers, effects as an infectious lure for new creative contrasts.” creative new for lure infectious an as effects of its own.” The matrix works, if it does, “through authority words) “no insinuation Stengers’s (in it has and then transformative sort, any of matrix conceptual a as togroup that of of one observations.speak If comparative can relativism testify all symposium Stengers, toSmith, this make deandViveiros Strathern, Castro that contributions The thought. in constructed be must furthermore it and ofdata. Theempirical event must induced,be prodded, supported, mediated not emerge of its own accord; suc and it is never, of course, found simply occasional in the form the and experiment cess. the At the only same is time, the there event, whether creation: in the its natural for or the social strive sciences, will should But as Stengers argues, there is no method for creating the event, even though we and Strathern and Castro de Viveiros of writings the in given are Hageners and shamans indian fiesillustrated, likewiseis I believe,the by expression force”in Amer“full that exempli Stengers and defines Péguy that relativism of variety The appetites. and contrasts, situations, relationships, new with experiment to willingness or andgists witches, hypnotists andwho junkies, share only occasionally a capacity anthropolo psychologists, and physicists comprises aboutshe which writes tices prac of ecology The exemplary. is work Stengers’s own regard, this force.”In would thateach appear party and be “concerned full to appear, particular his in about,” is (b) comparison and versionofwhatthe own not able presenttheir to are (a) that “no comparison would be legitimate if the parties to be compared are be: “Pay attention totivism consequences.” requirement ofThe corollaries this provisionally. except it, sanction procedures no methodological that and relations through made is knowledge rather,that is, relativism ofcomparative face upshot The scientists. threatening social and philosophers that many so not is disturbs it that relativism of objectivism; of obverse the not is here involved tivism haz will I statement, a is The rela relativism. comparative of thescope within interests” firmly is that own suggest, to ard its pursue to order in other the needs “Each mentbutalliance. selected selected that are to likely be suitable as models letting go the ambition for statistical significance. Healso suggested that cases be interlocutors. academic Risks of taking. worth well seems experiment of the risk —

Casper Bruun Jensen Bruun Casper Stengers follows Charles Péguy in suggesting that oneStengers follows requirement Péguy Charles ofin suggesting rela Lévi- Comparative ­Strauss proposed that anthropology should stick to single case studies,

—

and indeed by the force of expression that Smith permits her permits Smith that expression of force the by indeed and 245 17 Whether or not alliance is effected by this experiment, the the experiment, this by effected is or not alliance Whether . Relativism 17 . Stengers, “Beyond Conversation,” Conversation,” “Beyond Stengers, — likely to likely a facilitate golden event. 16 The is aim not agree 248 .

— - ­ ------