Symposium: Comparative Relativism

ZENO AND THE ART OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Of Lies, Beliefs, Paradoxes, and Other Truths

Eduardo Viveiros de Castro

Translated by Antonia Walford

It’s always night, or we wouldn’t need light. — Thelonious Monk, from Thomas Pynchon, Against the Day

The deliberately paradoxical nature of this symposium’s title encapsulates a dis- tinctive concern of some of today’s most vitally important intellectual endeavors. There is only one of these that I can or should consider as my own untransferable matter of concern — the endeavor seeking performatively to redefine anthropol- ogy as consisting essentially of (a) a theory of peoples’ ontological autodetermina- tion and (b) a practice of the permanent decolonization of thought. I am aware that the very word anthropology may be jeopardized by this redefinition, given that it belongs firmly among the conditions of our current civilizational deadlock (or should I say, impending downfall), which bears a more than fortuitous rela- tion to our unrelenting determination that the world continue to revolve around

Common Knowledge 17:1 DOI 10.1215/0961754X-2010-045 © 2011 by Duke University Press

128 to critical adjudication. critical to topic, amenable to translative comparison (or controlled equivocation) rather epistemological anthropological not an than an but puzzleas relativism as analyzing compare comparisons compare words,other to in domains; between analogies indigenous modesof perceiving naturalism” emerged as the result of attempt an to contrast anthropological and parative relativism andapproach relativism parative theme the by ofmeans four “formulas” outside. (as it the cage were) at look from a that able have be to to as so cage, dichotomies and nature/culture (to and name nature/culture but a few) swapped field geophilosophy for ontographical speculation ontographical for geophilosophy field swapped work my of Much anthropology. social to specific meaning a of point view. anthropological an from nor inconsequential tal continue continue to be Greek moments)ontography.”“speculative relevant the case, any In onomastics would case, rename the discipline “field geophilosophy” or (in reference to our armchair the human in its historico- various in human the nitional tacticmakes evident the “whatever being” ( or singular. They are also somewhat in the sense indirect, that they “exemplify” theme by means of by theme is means notquotations contingent. humanities is merely a coincidence as well. However, the decision to approach the paraphrastic symmetry. That anthropology is perhaps the most Kantian of all the Summarize the Kantian Philosophy.” Kantian the Summarize approachDeleuze, by Gilles “On Four article isan Poetic Formulas Might that quotations of the passages chosen. 4 Verso, London: Clinical Philosophy,” in Kantian the Summarize 3 N.S. Institute logical Perspectivism,”Amerindian 2 3 of Controlled Equivocation,” Equivocation,” Controlled of Method the and Anthropology “Perspectival Castro, de 1 Camiller, Camiller, Patrick trans. in Sensitization,” Exercise An or Moralism? tations, see Émilie Hache and Bruno Latour, “Morality . . . – .

22 Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, “Cosmological Deixis and and Deixis “Cosmological de Castro, Viveiros Eduardo Gilles Deleuze, “On Four Poetic Formulas that Might Might that Formulas Poetic Four “On Deleuze, Gilles For “controlled equivocation,” see Eduardo Viveiros Viveiros Eduardo see equivocation,” “controlled For For another recent instance of such recourse to quo to recourse such of instance recent Foranother . In the present context, I want to consider the idea of anthropology I want to present ideaconsider the context, the ofIn anthropology The question for me is how to give the expression expression the give to how is me for question The , trans. Daniel W. Daniel ( Greco , and Michael Smith trans. Common Knowledge Common —

— 1998 that illustrate what I intend in various ways. My inspiration for this forwhat I this Myways. intend inspiration various in illustrate that

unity/multiplicity, universalism/relativism, representation/reality,

4 ). . 3 ( . 1998 2 The purpose was to trace a line of flight thosepast infernal — Journal of the Royal Anthropo Royal the of Journal 1 ): ):

5 16 The Amerindian- a detail that, a there is that, need detail little to add, is neither acciden They areneither nor individual generic, but exemplary 46 Tipití . 2 9 (Spring – 88

2 . . 1 Essays Critical and ( January January 2010 conceptual guises. We guises. ­conceptual could perhaps, this in ): ): 3 — I keepwill to four formulas for reasons of 311 2004 that that are the of bars like our metaphysical 1986 – ­derivedconceit of“perspectival multi 30 ): ): - - . ; 4 they explain, that “Agamben ascribes to what he calls ascribes “Agamben that explain, they Springer, Literature in Sentiment ed. Anna- Moral The Evil: and Good of Enigma (Re)turn: The The (Re)turn: “Antigone’s Valerie Reed, and Statkiewicz Max see terms, lunqueessere 5 spective of any generic property.” generic of any spective being’: ever ‘nature’ the best of reveals that designation ‘what Latin Press, Minnesota of University (Minneapolis: Hardt Michael Recourse to examples as a defi a as examples to Recourse .

Giorgio Agamben, Agamben, Giorgio qualunque 1993 ­Teresa Netherlands: Tymieniecka (Dordrecht, 2005 ), ), quodlibet ens quodlibet or ‘whatever being.’ It is in fact its original original its fact in is It being.’ ‘whatever or comparative relativism comparative 8 – ), ), Éthos 10

— 801 , , . For an encapsulated discussion of the the of discussion encapsulated For. an —

has consisted in in consisted has quodlibet of the Coming Community,” in in Community,” Coming the of : it is “the lack of any characteristic,” characteristic,” any of lack “the is it : at least since I since least at ...... TheComingCommunity quodlibet ) nature nature ) as

— com

four is what is is what is - - - -

loved , trans. trans. , irre qua The The - - - , Viveiros de Castro • Zeno and the Art of Anthropology 129 6 21 vol. vol. Afar Lévi- by assumed positions to certain ethnocentrism Rorty’s likens 7 Values Human on Lectures in 7 culture. to partial very be to known been have anthropologists we as just solidarity, for all is he and “nature”; means tivity” . (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, of Press, Utah University City: (Salt Lake .

–

Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers Philosophical Truth: and Relativism, Objectivity, Common Knowledge 130 Clifford Geertz, “The Uses of Diversity,” in in Diversity,” of Uses “The Geertz, Clifford Richard Rorty, “Solidarity or Objectivity?” ( Objectivity?” or “Solidarity Rorty, Richard 34 - [Chi Hoss Phoebe and Neugroschel Joachim , trans. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: . Rorty’s “solidarity” means “culture,” his “objec his “culture,” means “solidarity” Rorty’s . Strauss in “Race and Culture” (in (in Culture” and “Race in ­Strauss ner or Adam Kuper has said Rorty’sthings. similar sentence does bring to mind, Gell Ernest perhaps more familiar; am I which with literature, anthropological it? from anthropology about something we learn Can heuristic. principally is Indian, I think that everything has already been spoken already has everything that I think Indian, Amazonian an or intellectual postmodern a Like to. admit do I which ment, relativism. and comparison, of anthropology, themes the connect that in all possible senses (and especially the worse ones), in the majority of arguments chosen passages evoke the idea of belief, which of is course profoundly implicated, suggest intrinsic negativities (virtualothers or actual)it; that wouldparalyze propel would it.that of All the anthropology of negations extrinsic to amount quotations some restrictive: part, in least at are, that terms in anthropology and we anthropologists are not are “side.” same on the weand anthropologists he that indicate to seems above quotedsentence the Rorty, Richard of matism prag antifoundationalist the with solidarity feel to possible it was point at any If — seriously. take cannot simply we which visions of lots are there that means this that and are, we where from start to we have that fact the accept should intellectuals We liberal Western relatively something say they that so spoken been have that things ing just one more been already has however,everything that there is no need to rehearse them here. them rehearse to need no is there wellknown; are “ethnocentrism” own his proud was call to what Rorty against I is to say, to is comparatively

Richard Rorty Richard I do not know of anything obviously equivalent to this passage in the the in passage this to equivalent obviously anything of know not do I The use of quotations here of frag The use notquotations does the merelyreflect for apenchant , ed. Sterling M. McMurrin, vol. vol. McMurrin, M. , Sterling ed. collage ( or Objectivity? , Solidarity ; it is rather a The View from from View The 1986

— ). Geertz

new. Tanner 1991 1985 ), ), - ) , bricolage spokesperson. himself elected Rorty which for those like projects monic by hege its absorption against reflex protective a society’s of amount ethnocentrism in a sees certain hand, other the in in Geertz,” A to Reply Clifford “On Ethnocentrism: (Rorty, people” of sorts different more and more include to ‘we’ in power, and their gradual willingness to usethose of the term imagination the of expansion gradual the . “.. dominant: increasingly as itself imagines that civilization a of point vantage the from ethnocentrism of virtues the extolling is Rorty difference. crucial a misses Geertz that Press, Chicago of University cago: Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth and Relativism, Objectivity, 7 My intention in highlighting this passage 1985 (no etymological connection), rearrang connection), etymological (no said ) . But I do not regard this effort as as effort this But. donot I regard 6 Clifford Geertz’s arguments arguments Geertz’s Clifford — which does notwhich mean, , 1992 2 07 ). Lévi- ]). It seems to me me to seems It ]). — Strauss, on ­Strauss, which which - - - - - 8 among the Azande the among principally self- any with incapacityderives “we” from our subject matter and say addressee: to anthropologists speak inability our for known general in are who is read far and wide) as “Western.” The problem is that “we anthropologists” as liberals, perhaps not as “intellectuals” either, nor even (as Rorty is an author ferent from “them.” This “them” are those others who do not regard themselves apparently “tribespeople” his self- however, The awkwardness, tual. resides not in the subject of butthe phrase in its self- a and ofview point pological tone).chummy But I do not see any relation of anthro the consequence between their long- recog would true, is it Geertz, nize himself willingly as a acknowledgment. “Western an liberal intellectual” than (which is why, imposition apart an from like more itsounds case, any “we.” In Rorty’s from excluded feel to critic postcolonialist of anthropology. tion antidefini perfect a to converges admonition wordhis of Each (anddismissive). of problem; reply his generalsame only ispurely type negative the confronting perhaps as seen be could Rorty Azande. the toward and are” we “where from away us steer to tried least at having of merit the retains he today, us satisfies ofwho “we” are for next the paragraph.) Evans- If you” t/his kind of “we.” kind t/his not are we contrast: privative a as unless here, helpus to begin even not could a “we” is possible. Rorty’s relativism of the rich and pragmatism of the powerful convergent) which (not under multipleconditions necessarily the determine to ask: ofexistence reconceive anthropologist the Howcan witches? of existence the cerning con Azande the of conceptions the seriously take anthropologist the can then conceive(as them) exist we“cannot” existence),conceive and of how possibility Azande (asthe witches that problem:given this resolve to exactly written was other words, reconceptualize words, other them, cannot exist.” cannot them, Azande the among Magic and Oracles, craft, of four ofchapter beginning atthe observation however,marvelous that .

E. E. Evans- E. E. ­regarding metapragmatic structure. Rorty speaks here for his internal public, Who — ­ him- imagine to anthropologist the for necessary not is It and increasingly we speak we speak increasingly and are “we”? Who “we”?Who are standing ­standing friendship, his critical dialogues with Rorty have a somewhat — “them” about

— Pritchard, ­Pritchard, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1937 Clarendon, (Oxford: who already are where he is and who are, by implication, implication, by are, who and whereis he are already who

in other words, an interest words,other an in

— 8 E. E. Evans- E. E.

Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic there exist only liberal intellectuals in the United States, States, United the in intellectuals liberal only exist there

— says

those who are more than ready to say “we are not are “we say to ready than more are who those

“we” (and when, or how)? problem, Our is sum, in —

witches so that they can assume a possible mode mode possible a assume can they that so witches to ). description of this sort by a Westernintellec a by sort ofthis ­description ­Pritchard’s detailed monograph painstakingly “them.” in And both cases our business is to

— : “Witches, as the Azande conceive Azande the as “Witches, :

for us? (We will leave the question question leave the (Weforus? will ­Pritchard’ssolution no longer satisfaction. That That ­satisfaction. or herself as a as herself or very Witch

— dif

in in ------

Viveiros de Castro • Zeno and the Art of Anthropology 131 9 1 Athlone, (London: Effect and Substance Property, – .

26 Common Knowledge 132 Marilyn Strathern, “The Ethnographic Effect I,” in in I,” Effect Ethnographic “The Strathern, Marilyn . and hallucinations of visions” can only be a Pandora’s box, to full the brim with fantasies, delusions, “Lots question. the of ously “lots begging manner ofsubtle is a visions” less than matters. really that sense the in “field” or outdoor science an being exo- that airing theoretical onthe crucially reasons agenda, for multiple disciplinary the the top of at itself finds today that eratum endo- authentic of an viability The self. of the suffocation can can (or must) be taken here in its two main senses: that of facility (it is easy not to seriously. There is nothing less simple or more dismissive than this adverb, which we that itfollows visions, of lots are there If “visions.” Rorty’squantifier, “lots of,” than complement,its respect this morecrucial in is proteic its monstrosity. all in ofnontruth essence the is ofsimilars community us to conclude ethno and that what lies outside the “conversational” consensual, sphere of the pragmatic intersubjective, centric conception an butof truth; the pragmatist’s Oneis still truth uphold does pragmatism that true is It know, lies are multiple (and the devil is their father), but the truth is One (as God). ask for ask problem the and Strathern Marilyn by described beautifully so effect” “ethnographic the between similarities more many see I to want from, but so saying does not anyin way usinform of where we could, should, or have from to where start we are”? Without that question is where we have to Bank, as it Bank, were) is In other words, we have to start from where we are, because here (on the Western be. to we want where territory, far the in are We were. we which in territory the behind We. left . . have done. itis pushthem on. however . . that, . Let assume us it may have been done, People . . . solved having bank. and, far them, solve day.They the every to problems such solve nowhere, yet, as is, which are, we where from us get to namely, how opening, the of problem the all of first is There reason cal recesses of the liberal intellect and thus to faithful the project of exteriorizing to ogy reach and in the remain far territory, out in the open, away from the ironi Elizabeth Costello: Elizabeth But back to Rorty’s antidefinition: calling that which “we” cannot take seri take cannot “we” which that calling antidefinition: Rorty’s to back But Now, what is the meaning of ideathis we are enjoined to accept

—

—

— arrive

the project that, nolens volens, insistently takes our discipline out of the

formulated by J. M. Coetzee just before he transforms himself into into himself transforms he before just Coetzee M. J. by formulated

some of them even reasonable even them of some . Neither does it tell us where us it tell does Neither . — not 9 worlds ofworthy “the Nazis or the Amazonians.” where we want to be. On the contrary, we want anthropol want we contrary, the On be. to want we where 19 99 ), ), 11 2004 10 . .

Rorty, “Solidarity or Objectivity?” or Objectivity?” “Solidarity Rorty, J. M. Coetzee, J. Coetzee, M. ), ), 10 1 .

— anthropology has always enabled, always has it ­anthropology exactly

seems to me, therefore, to depend depend to therefore, me, to seems Elizabeth Costello Elizabeth we are.point, Regarding this

—

as pragmatic as one could could one as pragmatic as cannot take them them take cannot simply anthropology, a desid ­anthropology, (New York: Penguin, Penguin, York: (New

— 31 .

which leads

— 11 As we all

that “we start - - - - - liberal intellectuals than between the former and the Amazonian peoples. Amazonian the and former the between than intellectuals liberal common in things from the point of view of an “tribespeople,”Amazonian there are infinitelydiffer: to more beg I Amazonianist, an as Speaking consensus. Western liberal a by represented civility and pole a to of lucidity antipodal therefore,coincidentally (also calledthe Amazonians “primitive tribespeople”) as poles indifferently and, and Nazis the sees he that impression the gives author The us. with “premise” ously subjectvery matter of anthropology declares that Rorty impossible to seri take seriously). them take not to take seriously this motley bunch of visions) and of peremptoriness (it is imperative 12 Rorty’s text as twin twin as text Rorty’s self- cannot “simply” we what seriously take to not namely converse, its as humor of sense manehere. To seriously take what we seriously “cannot” take demands muchas ger is of practices, Stengers’s ecology Isabelle to irony, important and so humor when he starts to refer to himself. to refer to starts hewhen always a moment in which the ironist begins to talk of seriousness trism . . . is essential to serious, non- not must we that things the fromor arethat far outside seriously weto take strive of things of all almost us, seriously certain tion as well). Second, and reciprocally, anthropology must find a way a find must anthropology reciprocally, and Second, well). as tion concep extrasensory of objects are and vision than other senses by perceivable seriously very as takes well us, seriously.the take question of Anthropology tells Rorty so cannot, Westernwhatintellectuals seriously taking to dedicated endeavor intellectual Western that is Anthropology Rorty’s. as such hibition tively: not tively: objec seen worlds rather but views, consensual not beliefs, not are “visions” that or to the immediative illusion of discursive echolalia. Anthropologists must allow ideaof seriousness must not be tied to thehermeneutics of allegorical meanings object.anthropologist’sThe have representations their that as attitudes” tional seriously)things that is not tied to the notion of belief or of any other “proposi (a taking ofway conceptseriousness of a construct it must First, doublea task. isdiscipline how toolsto faces the acquire allowto that us do so. Anthropology seriously take what refers Rorty to as “visions.” The problem constitutive of the .

Rorty, “Solidarity or Objectivity?” or Objectivity?” “Solidarity Rorty, indulgently ironical. ­indulgently

— It is here that we arrive at the nucleus of Rorty’s antidefinition. It is the is It antidefinition. Rorty’s of nucleus the at arrive we that here is It A final point on this citation: “the Nazis or the Amazonians” appear in appear Amazonians” the or Nazis “the citation: this on point final A not

and the discipline indeed defines itself by not accepting any liberal pro liberal any accepting not by itself defines indeed discipline the and take seriously. Relativism is seriously (and serenely) humorous, not humorous, serenely)(and seriously is Relativism seriously. take worldviews other — topoi , but, speaking pragmatically “visions.” The reciprocity here is fundamental, for while while for fundamental, hereis reciprocity The “visions.” of alienness, as people who do not share any relevant relevant any share notdo who people as alienness, of worlds of vision of worlds take seriously are near to or inside of us. “Ethnocen us. of inside or to near are seriously take 30 . 12 The famous Deleuzian distinction between between The famous Deleuzian distinction fantastical ­fantastical thought,” Rorty declares; there is (and not vision only — between the Nazis and Western and Nazis the between

—

these areworlds these

—

the moment not to take take to how to to ------

Viveiros de Castro • Zeno and the Art of Anthropology 133 zonian sociality in terms of in terms a sharing- sociality zonian Ama of descriptions those of example, for thinking, am by non- impersonated ideals ethical ern West us with confront that reconstructions ethnographic 13

. Common Knowledge 134 There is nothing more hollow- more nothing is There unaccountably definitive (in both senses) and therefore equally immobilizing. immobilizing. equally therefore and senses) both (in definitive unaccountably really worth living. Aside from being depressively that claim would nihilistic, be creation conceptual all paralyze impossible worlds worlds impossible tobelievein simplemindedasentimentality, readiness of dreamy quality this is say, to tempted is one pragmatism, American sideclearheaded of flip The tacky. After the somewhat haughty tone of the previous citation, this one sounds almost — living. worth life a be must there somewhere that is of anthropology fantasies fundamental of the One II from where we started end, exactly the wherein was, fantasy.” A fantasy is not something we are are we something not is fantasy fantasy.”A point.instead of First, awe that “fact” “should accept,” we have a “fundamental of course. matter, of the seriousness the to relative to the project of anthropology. His use of the idea of is“fantasy” the key ferently. It seems to me to contain a very serious, utterly “nonfantastical” thought home”no place like and that he or she has “really” found a life worth living. worth life a found “really” has she or he that and pology is over once the anthropologist believes that the fantasy has been realized Anthro a fantasy. it remain must that is of anthropology fantasy” “fundamental not one simply but how could living; worth seriously, wetake have a life cannot simply we that visions of lots of instead life; this of value real the of that is of visions” but “a life”: a difference, vital it seems to me. the question And raised it were. Third, the object of the fundamental fantasy, its “aboutness,”acci not is not “lots necessary, is concerned is anthropology “somewhere” as far as his dental, of character unspecified The heading. are exhortation to “start from where we are,” Schneider’s formula points to where we more precise idea, by comparison, of our current location. Second, instead of an power differently, to make us think to us take elsewhere so that we might have a that we thing David Schneider David The respective formulas of Rorty and Schneider could be opposed point for for point opposed be could Schneider and Rorty of formulas respective The dif very read be could observation Schneider’s David that think I However, Among those matters that could rightfully be called fundamental to the the to fundamental called be rightfully could that matters those Among assess sounding than those those than ­sounding ­and- Roy Wagner Roy to , foreword Western actors. I I ­Western actors. from a pragmatic point of view, in terms of its greater or lesser somewhere caring convivial convivial ­caring — indeed. And what a dire conclusion that is. conclusion that what a dire And indeed. really , as in “over the rainbow.” As we know,we rainbow.” “overAs the in as , - - — worth living. Perhaps there are lives not really which is not to say that that say not to is which 88 Press, Chicago of University [Chicago: Culture of world” Roy the Wagner that ( in ‘unpredicting’ adventure “continual the invention,” and “boldness the descriptions These of similars.” “community – 89 , The Curse of the Souw the of Curse The , ) sees in places like Melanesia or Amazonia. or Melanesia like places in sees ) take seriously a life, any life, a seriously take — forced a determined indetermination, as as indetermination, determined a to accept or reject but some — where we were. “There’s 13 nowhere Such a belief would would belief a Such ( 1967 ) is there a life life? that The Invention entirely some 1981 miss miss ], ], - - - - - “tribal, religious, peasant peoples, lower classes. . . .”. . lower classes. peoples, peasant religious, “tribal, which he vagueness with bearers describes the of cultures: these purposeful the Note everywhere. exist that and differentiating) (or inventive as classifies he that sequence.” inventive an Wagner by as exhibited ofof cultures writes brilliance” quality “a certain “life phrase the in refers Wagner Roy which to sense the in “life,” to do with haveto levels do nothing but with of everything civilization minima toward “fantasy” (as opposed to “conversation”). to (asopposed “fantasy” toward off veer to ready always is heimplies that “questa to authenticity” for consensus ismoved by a quest for authenticity. opposes pragmaticown Rorty quest his for epistemo- of the form the refrain from contemplating. Hence the construction “there must exist” becomes wecannot something being time same atthe while determine, orsatisfactorily the existence of a life really worth living is not something we can ever objectively to as question For the anthropology. to fundamental motive a of sense, Kantian classic the in otherwords,use, SchneideroneIn describing ispurelyregulative 14 conceptually find therefore must Anthropology negativity. odological ological reasons, precisely, if no other. “Somewhere” is the name of meth this found be to are cultures ity has full rights of citizenship within anthropology within citizenship of rights full has ity book. thewe findonly mention of inDeleuze (critical) Rorty’s believing in what Amazonian peoples, for example, think and say and think example, for peoples, Amazonian what in believing lives. other these by imparted of visions” “lots the seriousness with theorize to Heidegger for it for Heidegger to disbelieve in a thought, it is first necessary toimagine itas part of a beliefsystem; sion of symbolic competence rather infinitethan credulity. In order to believe or provi good requiring work, heavy is literally anything take to that understand opposite the else (or naive singularly as me strikes in” believe “to means literally take to that further, and, literally” take “to with synonymous is seriously” take “to literally, whatabout asexpressive think they of world? the a truth The idea that culture of “minima” and “maxima” the author whatcalls the between difference ofthe subject the on clear perfectly it is and ofculture, notion the onproduced tions reflec profound more the among is Spurious” and Genuine “Culture, article .

Interestingly, it is in connection with this point that that point this with connection in is it Interestingly, In short, Schneider’s formula elucidates the extent to which anthropology anthropology which to extent the elucidates Schneider’s formula short, In Butwhat does it mean to seriously take thelives of others? Would it mean — — authentic and inauthentic collective forms of life. of forms collective inauthentic and authentic a case of bad faith). by Only being too literal-

—

a life really worth living, which can be donewhich can living, aworth really life only by deciding to

—

and there is no reason to revoke them. Edward Sapir’s Sapir’s Edward them. revoke to reason no is there and everywhere political imperative peculiar to anthropology. to peculiar imperative ­political except precisely where precisely except 15 David G. Mandelbaum ( Mandelbaum G. David Personality and Culture, Language, in Writing Selected ifornia Press, Press, ifornia 16 14 . .

But the notion of authentic of notion the But Edward Sapir, “Culture, Genuine and Spurious,” in in Spurious,” and Genuine “Culture, Sapir, Edward Roy Wagner,Roy 16 It appears thus thatthese

— minded could ­minded one to fail —

we do not need to go go to need not do we we 1985 or rather,(re)inventor 15 are The maxima and and maxima The Invention of Culture of Invention ), ), 308 — 1924 – for method for 31 .

; Berkeley: University of - Cal ; University Berkeley: —

taking taking , 89 - - - - - .

, ed. ed. ,

Viveiros de Castro • Zeno and the Art of Anthropology 135 19 17 dieux faîtiches dieux 2004 Ontologies,” Amerindian in Subjects into Objects of Transformation The spectives: 18 . . . Common Knowledge 136

Bruno Latour, Latour, Bruno Rorty, “Solidarity or Objectivity?” or Objectivity?” “Solidarity Rorty, See Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, “Exchanging Per “Exchanging Castro, de Viveiros Eduardo See ): ): 463 – 84 (Paris: Éditions Synthélabo, Synthélabo, Éditions (Paris: , at discourse as an opinion an or as a collectiondiscourse of propositions people whose beliefs one legitimately can challenge and the others. Autrui well- his from helphere,taken may us that argument ean thought being a esoteric There vessel wisdom. of is Amazonian infused a Deleuz things, of essence ultimate and intimate the to access provide does it that ing imagin by or psychologists) evolutionary or materialists cultural the for as one, or allegorical “truth” (either a associal truth, for orthe Durkheimians, a natural to their thought in terms of belief, whether by suggesting that it has an anagogical describe neither wishes Anthropology define. to want we that of“seriousness” concept the of with beliefterms in isa decision seemsconsubstantial that anthropology belief olddays) relation the by casting betweenof terms natives in and discourse their judgments). caused a already great has bad deal of the (in damage Anthropology and dis Alien thoughts cannot be taken as opinionstruth- of (thelanguage onlylogistic possiblethe in or belief of objectaccounts psychological ofof belief terms in posed never are anthropological authentically are that problems but meanings or our own.” our or meanings native the either believe to having of trap the into forced is certainty, and dogma betweenpeoples.” Latour has observed that “belief is not a mental state, but an effect of the relation of intoculture an epistemic teratology: error, illusion, madness, ideology. Bruno context, each species is human unto itself). unto human is species each context, lem is that each person is a people ­ unto him- challenge to any beliefs but one’s beliefs own. any to challenge and the others” andthe one’s belief justify must onewhom to people the into race human the divide to entropically dissipates its structure. When I develop When entropicallydissipates world the its structure. expressedby the that verification of process a undergoes possible the that means which me, by course explicated is normal other the in the possible the in of implication The self, interaction. social the of by actualized be to always has world this but world, 4 64 Petite réflexionsur leculte moderne des – 68 As Wagner writes: “An anthropology . . . that reduces meaning to belief, belief, to meaning reduces that . . . “Ananthropology Wagner writes: As — . For Deleuze, Amazonian (or other any people’s) Amazonian of thought terms in belief, nor belief) or as collections­belief) of propositions (the only possible object of truth . theology dogmatic like look culture making thus Common Knowledge Common

— 30 17

then toracethenanthropologist beis an human tointo the divide right is Rorty if case, which In . 1996 Autrui 21 ), ),

And as I have said, our refusing to pose the questions of of questions the pose to refusing our said, have I as And 10 15 . 3 .

(Fall —

the other, another - 21 with the other. “belief is neither (orbelieve!); do to what deciding in sideration 20 . .

Wagner, Wagner, Though of course “legitimacy” is never the only con only the never is “legitimacy” of course Though 20

” ever the true object of any serious confrontation confrontation serious of object any true ” the ever 19 Not much room is left for a or herself (just as, in the Amazonian or herself as, in (just the Amazonian Invention of Culture of Invention

— —

is an expression of a possible that “to be ethnocentric is is ethnocentric be “to that

—

thus making the study study the making thus known conception ofconception ­known — , 30. or by treating this this treating by or 18 The prob The legitimate to relate to values. ­values. to - - - -

artificial however experience, of conditions special upon insist to right were we such, as other the grasp to order why, is in That subject. a of status the to or object an of status the to either it reduce and structure its dissolve also other, each with disagreements our as well as commonalities our form which development, of relations these “However,” concept. the writes, of he definition his allowed element the of belief. way introduces this in Explication unreal. itas disavow it to or enter into and real itas validate to other,either it is relation, which realizes this possibility possibility this realizes which relation, condition “eternal” an into which the world of the other does not outside exist its expression is transformed The moment refers. at Deleuze which to conditions” special and “artificial the reality. true offantasies the themas ing others, aboutnor fantasizing leadingthemas to the possibilities as them sustain to deciding and thought alien of expressions possible the actualizing from refraining means It enclose. they ofother the implicit as does not meancelebrating that some mystery numinous wouldAnthropology do well tolesson take this to heart. To the values maintain expressions. their from apart exist not do that expresseds those all it with populating by world one’s own tiply mul and one’s values expli implicit to but maintain to much, not too other the cate other, the with much too oneself explicate to not all, above earlier invoked rule The reflections: his to fundamental maxim a reiterating by concludes Deleuze which expresses it; the Other as as Other the it; expresses which (for has that moment from us)atapart expressed the nowhich existence to to not to it is accomplish, to anthropology to apart from their expressions.” their from apart 22 1994 ( Patton .

multiply our world our multiply Gilles Deleuze, Deleuze, Gilles ), ), 261 Describing this process, Deleuze recalls the boundary conditions that that conditions boundary the recalls Deleuze process, this Describing The anthropological experience depends on the formal interiorization of interiorization formal dependsthe on experience anthropological The 1968 . ; New York: Columbia University Press, Press, University Columbia York: New ; Difference andDifference Repetition , peopling it with “all those expresseds, which do not exist notexist do which expresseds, those “all itwith peopling , — much too explicated be to not — the expression of a possible world possible a of expression the that is, a condition condition a is, that 23 , trans. Paul Paul trans. , as virtual as but others ratherof theworlds explicate . If there is one that thing it falls 23 internal .

— Deleuze, Deleuze, namely the the namely — . 22 meant, meant, to the anthropological — Difference and Repetition, Repetition, and Difference neither relinquish neither - - 324 - .

Viveiros de Castro • Zeno and the Art of Anthropology 137 24 Presses Universitaires de France, de France, Universitaires Presses Institute Anthropological Royal the of Journal Cults,” Ifá Cuban in Money Multiplicity: “Expending 26 25 . . . Common Knowledge 138 Mauss, Mauss, Marcel Mauss, Mauss, Marcel On “inventive definitions,” see Martin Holbraad, Holbraad, Martin see definitions,” “inventive On Sociologie et Anthropologie Sociologie defines itself.” defines that a “definition as defined be could further, and, anthropology of definition versionsare pology a as could formula of taken sense,bethe each other. this In anthro of method and object the that rather,or object, its of case particular a versa vice and difference of magic the form”“purewe mightcall ofof which the anthropology, outline the forces, form predominates overwhelmingly over content. over overwhelmingly predominates form forces, collective such of complete jurisdiction the under are worlds, which archaic In form ofbefore truth experience can stock it historically with empirical contents. athetic priori judgment, where collective forces provide pure the and invariable syn of form (social) original the being as beliefs magical of definition the to tives, that is characteristic of magic. The solution they light upon makes reference lity and skepticism, desire and perception, first- perception, and desire skepticism, and lity arriving. see others leaving, notdo see draw them from the bodies of his patients. And it is thus that the arrow that someto pretendshewhen see cannot he that body his from drawn being arrows the see will he man,” “medicine another of services the seeks and sick falls sorcerer a of deception and simulation in magic. in simulation and deception of Mauss and their Hubertreflectionsthe summarize concerning “grave question” how is arriver” voient la autres les partir, pas voient ne uns les que flèche “La ( Magic of — arriving. see others leaving, see not do some that arrow The III insist in the section of the the of section the in insist uted to the magician is that he believes, at least, in the magic ofothers.” magic the in at least, believes, he that is magician the to uted attrib be can that sincerity of minimum “The se: per magic in believe may they manipulating an effigy. Still, even if magicianscannot believein their own magic, someone’s by in body pain lancinating cause can they slowly)that or them ing them in kill the act (rather than killing without remove the liver of victims their believe that they do what they say they do. They cannot believe that they artfully Marcel Mauss and Henri Hubert Henri and Mauss Marcel Sociologie et Anthropologie et Sociologie But the Maussian formula seems to me strategic, insofar as insofar strategic, me to seems formula Maussian the But Mauss and Hubert’s problem here is an enigmatic entanglement of credu of entanglement enigmatic Hubert’s probleman and hereis Mauss 1904 ) 1950 26 , For the French school of sociology, magic is the epitome For the French of is doxa of school sociology, the magic 88. ), ), 88 . ( 11 189 . 2 3 ( ; Paris: Paris: ; 2005 Outline

— , Outline of a General Theory Theory General a of Outline ,

it allows us to see that anthropology’s method is is method anthropology’s that see to us itallows ): ): entitled “Belief,” that magicians orsorcerers “Belief,” entitled magicians that and Sari Wastel (London: Routledge, Routledge, (London: Wastel Sari and EthnographicallyArtefacts Mana (or Ifá Cuban of Cosmology Divinatory the in Motion 231 24 – 54 It is “impossible to imagine,” the authors authors the imagine,” to “impossible is It ,Again),” in , and “The Power of Powder: Multiplicity and and Multiplicity Powder: of Power “The and , person and third- and ­person Thinking Through Things: Theorising Theorising Things: Through Thinking , ed. Amiria Henare,, Holbraad, ed. Amiria

person perspec ­person 2007

— ).

by tracing tracing by 25 When When ------

Anthropologie structurale (common sense as belief), but Mauss and Hubert’s phrase confronts us with a dif a with us confronts phrase ferent object Hubert’s and Mauss but belief), as sense (common 27 same as my misunderstanding of them.” misunderstanding my as same of me not was the misunderstanding Daribi,“their the relations with initial his it whatone is that exactly is or is not seeing. Wagner As memorably of observes whathappensunable when, toseeit,onebeing notdoeshow know toestablish where, and from what, who sees or of a is problemmeasurement: of observation, reason to see or not to see the magic arrow from where they are. Mauss’s problem correct be principle in arrive that someone mula does not allow one to say a priori who is right, not even if it must be the case seriousness rather the than other seriousness way around.on The “minimum ofdepend sincerity” is a ofbelief maximum make to necessity, same the ways) different (in of simultaneously necessary but mutually exclusive descriptions of the same phe same the of nomenon. The descriptions magic arrow could be seen as aparticle, quantum for exclusive which only mutually but necessary simultaneously of more version of Niels Bohr’s principle of complementarity; that is, the existence jectory is not what I have in mind. in have notI what is jectory than one anthropologist has gone the way of Quesalid, to be sure; but his tra relation of magician and magic and relationofmagician to so, if And sorcery? his with sorcerer’s relation the to analogous is “beliefs”) (native studies phenomenahe the with relation gist’s see not of the anthropologist and of the native. The witches that Evans- works. usually how sorcery is that and are, It is not necessary to see an arrow leave from somewhere to departure. of moment see the in it arrive than where we arrival of moment the in seen arrows more far ( their different express persons, of whodecoupling affect course, cal usually can see the arrow leave; in his predicament as a patient, he sees it But arrive. the magi ( see arriving, note that it is the same person doubling up in the positions of “some” of that mysterious arrow. As for the arrow that some do not see leaving but others the question of location. are Where we here, now? relation. intimate les uns les

political) differences by way of this perspectival disjunction .

Claude Lévi- Claude Taken unprejudiciously (that is, slightly out of context), the Maussian for This disjunction also mutually implies in a special way the points of view of view points way the special a in implies mutually also disjunction This the with previousAs formulas,two our continueargument will on to turn — ) and “others” ( “others” and ) causing is is not

— —

—

right. The only sure thing, however, is that the two sides cannot sideshowever, cannot two the thing, that is sure only The right. because magic is always somebody else’s. somebody always is magic because Strauss, “Le sorcier et sa magie,” in in magie,” sa et sorcier “Le ­Strauss, , the Azande saw Azande the , paradox

either those who did not see the arrow leave or those who saw it (Paris: Plon, Plon, (Paris: les autres

at the same time —

with which anthropology (and which anthropology with magic) have more a far 1958 ). In his capacity as an agent, the sorcerer does not

— ), ), effecting

183 the side of the agent, or of the patient? Moreagent,orsideof the of the the 27 The sorcerer and the anthropologist share share Thesorcerer anthropologist the and – 203 , which does notdoes ,which good deny each has that 28 . , but does that mean the anthropolo the mean that does but , It is as if we are dealing here onewith 2 8 Somewhere .

Wagner, Wagner, which side which Invention of Culture of Invention

— along the trajectory

as a rule, there are ­Pritchard could of this double this of , 20 . ------

Viveiros de Castro • Zeno and the Art of Anthropology 139 as well, it seems to me, between the literal and figurative figurative and literal the between me, to seems it well, as occurs thing same the Much nonhuman. as automatically perceived) be other the (makes appear other the makes human as pole one of apperception the time: same the at as humans, but we cannot both see ourselves as humans as we see see ourselves, themselves Nonhumans or duality. complementarity of relation same the presupposes nians) Amazo of help the with relativism of theme the to give to able was I “spin” (the multinaturalism” “perspectival that remember also I described. be can experiment ical phys a which in ways exclusive mutually the to cultures human between differences the compares he which in 29

. Common Knowledge 140 Lévi- Strauss was fond of quoting a remark of Bohr’s Bohr’s of remark a quoting of fond was ­Strauss causally negative manner. negative causally between persons whichtinguish andshapes things, as wellthe gift as magic in a dis to primitives of incapacity notorious the of notthinking am I career. his in hallucination,” that Mauss had observed in the the in observed had Mauss that hallucination,” “perfect and illusion” “voluntary sincerity, and charlatanism belief, and ticism skep to regard with magic of ambiguity the to relation accidental than more a has gift the of complex “archaic” the characterizes Mauss to according that of spontaneity and obligation, and interest, generosity gratuity and aggressivity, question. the always is That meet? ends make to How cosmos. the of extremes two the separates interval discrete the traversing doing so end!),in the at ing to arrows each to other, (start from the the sky earth make a stairway continuous of succession a fastening who, myths Amerindian of the heroes by exemplified and belief, generosity and greediness) and also jointly involving a type of meta of type a involving jointly also and greediness) and generosity belief, and (skepticism nature dispositional ambivalent an presenting both sentiments, of heterogeneous two mixes these as itself manifests effect The tomagic. and gift theobserver, derived from a complex, overdetermined ontology common to the arrows coincide arrows two the make to one,itnecessary forexample). is least, magical Or,very atthe arrow the of native the and not any other (not a metaphorical arrow instead of a be must anthropologist the of arrow The arrives. and leaves that arrow same individual it is also so same itarrive, saw yet leaveand the arrow the notsee did who was it as Just one? become they that so native, the of that and ationofexcellence:anthropologist par that the arrows, how two the to connect versa. vice and leave,it see not do others if some for arrive only can arrow the that appears It notsee arrow the leaving reciprocally presupposes that “others” do see it arrive. “some” do that Analogously, established. be can momentum or position either A conjecture follows. It is possible to speculate that the perplexing mixture It is here that object and method meet, is the anthropological as this situ 29

—

to build a ladder of arrows starting with these two arrows, as as arrows, two these tobuild awith ladder of starting arrows 30 Rather I am referring to an epistemological effect on ­ - like people (E. B. Tylor’s B. (E. animism). people like treated are things magic, with women); of barter Frazer’s 30 1977 Press, G. Academic Feachem and [London: Richard ­Smith in the Pacific Ecology Rural and Survival: in Perspective,” Ecological of the Critique otic A Semi Innate: of the Conceptualizations Papuan enous Indig and (“Scientific Wagner of semiotics the in modes structuralisme du naissance la et Saussure signes. des énigmatique vie La in the anthropology of Lévi- .

With the gift, people are treated like things ( things like treated are people gift, the With ], ], 38 5 – 410) [Paris: Léo Scheer, 2006 Scheer, Léo [Paris: Outline in the Saussurian theory of the sign, and and sign, of the theory Saussurian the in , some thirty years earlier, some thirty ­Strauss (Patrice Maniglier, — abyss the , ed. Tim P. Bayliss- P. Tim ed. , ]). the the principle in Subsistence Subsistence — that that J. G. G. J. - - - ­ - - - up the two unequal halves of the symbol the of halves unequal two the up make that series two between disequilibrium perpetual a of concept the fier”: object of the same illustrious family. I family. mean object of illustrious same the to another of projectiles both these assimilates Such series. impossible quality an belonged points two to heterogeneous these if as traced, dimensionsor distinct be cannot arrival of point its and departure of point its between line straight destination. its at is resolved in reality, for the arrow own actions for oneself. Gift and magic are intentional multiplicities, disjunctive disjunctive syntheses one’s of multiplicities, meaning the intentional are magic and Gift defining in oneself. for view of actions own point other’s the includes that calculation and Beyond: Theand Beyond: Genealogical Model Reconsidered in Magic,” and Kinship on Essays Nano Three 31 the more real it becomes.” real more the meditated, is difficulty morethe concludes:“The whatever.” Russell time And occur to has position in change the way [magical!] miraculous some in but moving, never is “it says, Russell trand Ber As move. to room no have would it otherwise for itself, than larger space a occupy to have would it instant, the during move to wereit if itself; to equal each instant (indivisible, by definition),Zeno’s arrow occupies a portion of space thatflightfreeze-always is in eternal at rest, in arrow movement,ofthe Zeno’soneof paradoxes in four arrow the course, of arrow. mean, I Maussian the trajectory, in its crosses, and it day; this to flying, ago;long twomillennia very andIt it distances. has washalf a fired not stopped is But there leaving. we saw erosity, and reciprocally so on versa vice and near the into far the transforms paradoxically it while magical: is arrow Every person”tributed (look to where the arrow came from and you findsomeone). will “dis of the vector elemental the as somewhere) well get as youwill and pointing world over, the arrow is a universal symbol of the index (look where the arrow is andone of most the ubiquitous folklore intentionalityin of the images effective distance a at action of mediator archetypal The arrow. an question: in object ofthe nature the noticed I that intentionality ofmagical faces two the cerning own dreams.” to magic,gift seems to me closer the tofamous the mark “false coin than of our 237 2009 Berghahn, (Oxford: Leach James and Bamford dra . – Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, “The Gift and the Given: and the Given: Gift “The de Castro, Viveiros Eduardo 68 The Maussian arrow is just like Zeno’s: it “never moves,” given that a that given moves,” “never it Zeno’s: like just is arrow Maussian The It was only after contemplating for some time the Maussian formula con formula Maussian the time some for contemplating after only Itwas . in vivo in — . as skepticism transforms itself into belief, aggressivity into gen into aggressivity belief, itself transforms skepticism as 31 The oftheory value condensed arrow, in this the which links 32 The scandal of the paradox is that the real difficulty one

— magical arrow whose effect makes itself felt over

no arrow that we is the exactly onesee arriving

— between

against against all odds, as it were , ed. San ed. , Kinship Kinship

— the instants, that isthe instants, to say, not at any mana ), ), - frame, never ­frame, At its reaching target.

the series that contains an empty empty an contains that series the 32 ered Historically” ( ered Historically” Salmon (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, Hackett, IN: (Indianapolis, Salmon , Lévi- , . Bertrand Russell, “The Problem of Infinity Consid Infinity of Problem “The Russell, Bertrand Strauss’s “floating signi “floating ­Strauss’s 1929

—

rapidly arrives ), in Zeno’s Paradoxes 2001 - - - - - ), ), , ed. Wesley C. C. Wesley ed. , 51 . -

Viveiros de Castro • Zeno and the Art of Anthropology 141 Active Anthropology,” in in Anthropology,” Active and Local yet and Comparative and Global a Towards 2007 G. Fox Routledge, and Richard (London: Gingrich André 33

. Common Knowledge 142

Apud James Peacock, “Action Comparison: Efforts Efforts Comparison: “Action Peacock, James Apud ), ), 44 . ­Strauss. Cooked in motive ofthe centrality and frequency the mention not does he curiously, yet, theme; arrow magical the anthropology. help from little a with side, far the to we get do being,and self other,and side far language nearthe ofand the experience. And nonsense, subject object, and and poles of two meaning the between equidistant at this “vision” of Zeno’s immobile arrow, floatingin asupranumerary dimension Western intellectuals” have to start losopheme of Western metaphysics; if there is one place, therefore, at which “we Lévi- to cially we know to and and be espe we to true; anthropology do so, thanks in large part, social anthropology, the comparative method comparative the anthropology, social Evans- of celebratedphrase hereanother recall to Perhapsunnecessary nonsense. it is proper place for anthropology to erect its watchtower: the crossroads of sense and lies at the radical origin of semiosis, it is probable that here we havemismatch arrived this at As the arriving). see others that element (thearrow supranumerary the contains that series the and leaving) see not did some that arrow (the case of the most grand mental creations have been broughtcreations mental of to most the grand life.” and within and without Western knowledge, precisely the stuff out of which some that culminates in the victory of the weakest) “are, in philosophy and mythology, ill- between race the (forinstance, images” little familiar ceivably paleolithic, origin. heAs comments at of the beginning the book, “such which that to the theme has suggests con him an characters, archaic, animal two paradoxes, the “Achilles” one, with Amerindian narratives about the race between of the Eleatic paradoxes.) Finally, Schrempp connects the most famous of these Lévi- the version,in mythical a as correctly,quite species. of (Schrempp or clans natural myths interprets origin doctrine, the the ­Straussian doctrine concerning the “passage” of the continuous to the discrete in first Kant’s in Dialectic” “Transcendental the of sense)strong the (in antinomies cal andthe relation Maorimythology between ( Universe the of Folklore the and Greeks, Schrempp’s worksplendid Gregory mentioning A quick aside, aside, quick A I cannot conclude my remarks on the Mauss- the on remarks my conclude cannot I as one of its principal axes of comparison among Zeno, and Kant, Lévi- ­Pritchard’s (as recalled by Joseph Needham): “There is only one method in Anthropology, by Comparison by Anthropology, 35 It should be noted, if only in passing, that Amerindian myths mobi Strauss. We know also that Zeno’s paradoxes are a constitutive phi constitutive a are paradoxes Zeno’s that also know We ­Strauss. in fine in . Schrempp calls our attention to the universality of universality the to attention our calls Schrempp . , ed. ed. , Mythologiques Greeks, and the and FolkloreGreeks, of the Universe 34 35 Press, of Wisconsin sity

— . .

because we never manage to leave it Schrempp, Schrempp, Gregory Schrempp, Schrempp, Gregory 1992 ). The author explores the analogi the explores author The ). , despite his taking taking his despite ,

— , Arrows Magical

and that is impossible.” is that and Magical Arrows: The Maori, the TheMaori, Arrows: Magical Critique Straussian sense of the term, term, ofthe sense ­Straussian Hubert formula without without formula ­Hubert 1992 Magical Arrows: The Maori, the ), ), matched competitors competitors ­matched , as well as the Lévi- the as well as , 10 188 . 34 – This assessment 91 Theand the Raw (Madison: Univer (Madison: . 33

—

it is ------the art of indirection. of art the andof dangers say, the hyperreflexivity, calculus, anddifferential teach integral (as in the Maussian formula). Respectively, these setsthree of arrows, one might “belief ita course. of one, direction them; and the arrows that reach their target only if the archer looks in the other fired who those kill to return they lest ointment, magic a with weakened be to need they that powerful so arrows the animal; supernatural a by reconstituted broken and being segments into after only becomeaccurate deadly that arrows niques, bestowed logicallywith complex and evocative properties. There are the lize an astonishing diversity of quite unusual arrows, archers, and firing tech 36 truths). relevant generate to ontology cul (a culture each here ture by being as analogous taken to a scientific theory, which requires its own presupposed are that ontologies different the to according forms by which, and the conditions under which, andtruth falsity are articulated as mission, a “sensiblesocial relativism.” Anthropology’s of aframe reference should always be specified as well. this I attitude would call practice” “best or sense The most that one admitcan (“ middle excluded ( possible is itwhere exist only can science rather, Or falsities. and truths into being about guish between true and false propositions, separating that everything is affirmed This fourth and final quotation it false. is itEven true, if is IV be. we must wherever now and we are where ladders to ormake Shebetween serve ofbridges that meaning. must have arrows of awide river banks sky, the and two or the worlds earth the nectdisjunct like in her qualities butquiver; these shemost importantly, must have that con those is depressed at the fact . . .” (Friedrich Nietzsche, “Scho Nietzsche, . . .” fact at the depressed is (Friedrich will stick somewhere. But countless arrow timesthe it hopes misses but andaim no takes it arrow; an like kind man into philosopher the propels “Nature arrow: cal — .

Henri Michaux Henri They also call to mind another famous philosophi famous another mind to call also They

— — ” would be a cheap shot cheap a be would ” de jure de

that that is, its own field of and objects processes that is, that only arrive where one desires if they are not seen leaving

Science, as classically conceived, is based in the principle , Face aux verrous ( verrous , Face aux ) to separate the true from the false and where the law of the ofthe law wherethe and false the from true the separate to ) If it is true, then it is not false not is it then true, is it If 36 The anthropologist must have arrows possessing of all ofall possessing arrows have must anthropologist The — is that that is

—

—

and it isof a scientificfundamental maxim good 1954 ceteris paribus

“Même si c’est vrai, c’est faux” — ) that it is possible and necessary to distin to necessary and possible itis that - - - conditions always apply and that ,” and vice versa) is maintained. penhauer as Educator,” in in Educator,” as penhauer Press, Press, University Cambridge [Cambridge: Hollingdale J. R. 1983 — science ], 1 ], in in order for the theory 77 – 78 , is to describe the

— ).

is my favorite Untimely Meditations Untimely

—

to call - - - -

, trans. trans. ,

Viveiros de Castro • Zeno and the Art of Anthropology 143 37 well, well, Society and Culture in in Theory,” of Practice

. Common Knowledge

144 Michael Herzfeld, “Orientations: Anthropology as a a as Anthropology “Orientations: Herzfeld, Michael 2001 ), ), 2 . dictum of Tertullian’sdictum is equivalent “ to affirming, est dum absolutism.” “suprasensible call could we what to subordinated either of the two, becomes the prototypical anthropological object. object. anthropological prototypical the becomes two, ofthe either a between “nature” it as anda “culture” that, predates does them, not belong to The anagrammatic foundation of allsignification,the arbitrary differentiation the sensibleandfigurative, the theandintelligible, are reciprocally determined. cesses by which language and being, the signifier andthe signified,pro the thestudying for literalpredilection a case this in shows semiology,of branch a as down among the paradoxical roots of human semiosis. Anthropology, conceived then vice it false, versa. is and menides’ paradox Epi language. to immanent is that power) a (or predicament a identification, the impossibilityandexposes the precariousness of meanings univocal of every of form (auto)deconstructive caricatural, The neither,both. or false, or true pronounce cannot one that statements of ocean society. given any in “God’s truth” as taken are nontruths which mine ism of the social sciences. Anthropology’s mission, as a social relativ cultural the becomes absolutism suprasensible theological Society, = God equation, notorious PerDurkheim’s individual. the of perspective posteriori a whatever it is that society reference of whattruth; is false could only originate in the individual. Therefore, the and source the is society because social is Truth sensual. the sensiblefrom self- the to homologous way the is such and experience), individual formItoriginal of is truth. society all that separates from the before false, the true a in (coming judgments priori a synthetic ing on Hubert and Mauss’s phrase about magic. Magical and religious beliefs are the French sociological which of theory I briefly truth, invoked when comment well rather express but it does dogma; of Christian truth ortheological historical dictum, which, as is well known, is a misquotation, does not accurately reflectthe belief meaning. elementof genetic true the is which paradox, of decay”) “radioactive of speak our discipline our “different notions of culturally common sense” “theare object that of of study” , ed. Herzfeld (Malden, MA: Black MA: (Malden, Herzfeld ed. ,

— Religious belief, on the other hand other belief,the onReligious Between science Between and religion there opinion is, or naturally, Anthropology: Theoretical Practice , I believe because it is absurd: in the terms of Michaux’s formula, this this formula, Michaux’s of terms the in absurd: is it because believe I ,

is based thein principle and is that falsity between the distinction truth 37

—

should be taken in this case to be the result of a decay (as we(as decay a of result the be to case this in taken be should — the the liar’s paradox authorizes is true, even if it be false from the subordinate, ” Here, we are, in a sense, beyond cultural relativism, relativism, cultural beyond sense, a in are, we Here, ” separation of the social from the individual, the super the individual, the from social the of ­separation - — is a particularly apt example: is “ a particularly

—

dogma as the propositional form of form propositional the as dogma doxa Even if it is false, it is true. is it false, is it if Even is, precisely, is, which paradox, science, is to deter Credo quia absur doxa Doxa

— If it is true,

that vast

— ” The

the the ------

hand, is a doctrine of doctrine a is hand, common cause, both seeking possession of eminent causality. Magic, on the other in a unite of theyscience,fight religionand which as ferociously just proximity the appreciate to reciprocally, and, religion from magic distances that gap the of onewidth toitthe evaluate pace Mauss, permits formula: literally, amagical as presupposed false by anthropological formal semiotics. Michaux’s formula is, “religious belief of opposite true the that shows aphorism Michaux’s truth), of univocality the principle scientific of of the inverse wouldthe paradox be of the formula the as ( of Tertullian’s inversion it pseudoformula the as is Insofar paradox. beyond also but relativism beyond notonly is worlda that false, the of powers the and up in Michaux’s whichdictum, introduces us directly into the world of simulacra effects produced by effects what is said the with preoccupied is whosomeone is false,” itis true, itis “even if says, who cause (theconcern) of a thecause, “special is effect,” alwaysartifact, an alie. He life way of taking the proper suggests and mine is formula fifth you”). hatbecomes ofThis “that that (andis alterity alterity becomes anthropology I mean “becomes” also in the sense ation alter of powers its reveal alterity make to is aim whose practice conceptual a or,that better, alterity stays that alterity is anthropology that say might we spirit, same the In news. new, always always to change, to unbelief. and belief of both problematics the dants) descen and moreover suggests a path toward innumerable freeing its our discipline definitively and of school sociological French the of spirit the (in ology of the humorous enlightened, as laicized demonology a type rather than dismal, stein Smith’s vigorous expression, projects a possible image of anthropology as a usage) case of the lie. “even-This Agamben’s in but(again, “whatever”lie a ofthe case” notis “particular a truth byand society. toldare Thethat lies the within behind (always the truth nasty) sociology, of seeks critical which hermeneutics of the suspicion, sotypical with common in nothing has truth of pragmatics The false.” is it true, is it if “even is to tell the truth.) The only possible pragmatics dependsof truth on the axiom of prodigious ofeffects andfalsity falsehood. (As we all know, the best way to lie Evenits truth. the truth

— There is, however, a possibility,fourth the most ofdisturbing all, summed Ezra Pound definedliterature as “newsthat stays news,”as adiscourse able

of making a life worth living. Cosmology is gossip; politics is sorcery; and not ” is not truth.”“scientific Nor and oftrue is ittheindiscernibility stay put, to exist as a perpetual, extrahistorical becoming extrahistorical perpetual, a as exist to put, stay — other any much as as own our effects

—

especially the truth, it is especially the truth, tempting to say ; and all effect, from a point of view haunted by the hauntedthe by pointof a view from effect, all and ; — handed ­handed intolerance,” to Herrn borrow Barbara by by its effectiveness becomes alterity, since anthropology is is anthropology since alterity, , which has nothing to do with — seriously.

—

is capable just just

— ­ - - -

Viveiros de Castro • Zeno and the Art of Anthropology 145