Common Knowledge in Memoriam Pierre Hadot (1922–2010) Frank Kermode (1919–2010) Members of the Common Knowledge Editorial Board Editor Editorial Board Jeffrey M

Common Knowledge In Memoriam pierre hadot (1922–2010) frank kermode (1919–2010) Members of the Common Knowledge Editorial Board Editor Editorial Board Jeffrey M. Perl Wayne Andersen Tadao A ndo Department Editors K. A. Appiah Barry Allen, Associate Editor João Biehl (Philosophy and Politics) Sissela Bok Aden Bar-Tura, Managing Editor Caroline Walker Bynum Beverly Haviland, Associate Editor (the Arts) Stanley Cavell Alick Isaacs, Associate Editor (History, William M. Chace Religion, and Special Projects) J. M. Coetzee Lawrence Jones, Associate Editor (Research) Linda Colley William Kolbrener, Associate Editor (Literary Michael Cook Studies and Methodology) Lydia Davis Zsuzsanna Ozsváth, East European Editor Natalie Zemon Davis Belle Randall, Poetry Editor Mikhail Epstein Don Seeman, Associate Editor (Human Sciences) Fang Lizhi Cristina Thorson, Fiction Editor Joseph Frank Manfred Frank Assistant Editors Eugene Genovese Adam Cohen Philip Gossett Michael Fagenblat Anthony Grafton Claudine Frank Baroness Susan Greenﬁeld Eileen Gillooly Ian Hacking Glenn Holland Pierre Hadot James Johnson Václav Havel Ruth Karras Jasper Johns Jesse M. Lander Charles Johnson Gordon Marino Frank Kermode Yaakov Mascetti Anna Kisselgoff Kevin M. F. Platt György Konrád Simone Roberts Julia Kristeva Charles Sullivan Bruno Latour Jacques Le Goff Contributing Editors Greil Marcus Robert Nelsen Steven Marcus Edna G. Rosenthal Adam Michnik John Q. Stilwell Alexander Nehamas Shira Wolosky Reviel Netz Elaine Pagels Editorial Assistant Adam Phillips Michelle Burns J. G. A. Pocock Richard Powers Amartya Sen Quentin Skinner Common Knowledge is G. Thomas Tanselle published three times a year by Charles Taylor Duke University Press Tatyana Tolstaya in association with Bar-Ilan University Gianni Vattimo

Stanley N. Katz, Chair Common Knowledge Volume 17 | Issue 1 Winter 2011

SYMPOSIUM II Comparative Relativism: Comparison as a Matter of Concern Symposium on an Impossibility Isabelle Stengers 48 Introduction: Contexts for a Comparative Relativism Comparison as Participant Casper Bruun Jensen Helen Verran 1 64

Rats, Elephants, and Bees as Matters of Concern I Steven D. Brown The Chimera of Relativism: 71 A Tragicomedy Barbara Herrnstein Smith Hopeful Comparisons on the Brink 13 of the Grave Brit Ross Winthereik Multidimensional Reality 77 G. E. R. Lloyd 27 Sciences Were Never “Good” Isabelle Stengers Raising the Anti-, or Relativism 82 Squared Martin Holbraad 31 III Culture: A Site of Relativist Energy in Binary License the Cognitive Sciences Marilyn Strathern Andreas Roepstorff 87 37 Strathern’s New Comparative Chinese Comparisons and Anthropology: Thoughts from Hagen Questionable Acts and Zambia Barbara Herrnstein Smith Bruce Kapferer 42 104 One, Two, Three: Cutting, Zenos Wake Counting, and Eating Eduardo Viveiros de Castro Annemarie Mol Translated by Ashley Lebner 111 163

Non-Identity Politics Morten Axel Pedersen FICTION AND POETRY 117 From Before and During Vladimir Sharov What Politics? Translated by Oliver Ready Marilyn Strathern 166 123

Six Poems Simon Perchik IV 180 Zeno and the Art of Anthropology: Of Lies, Beliefs, Paradoxes, and Other Truths LITTLE REVIEWS Eduardo Viveiros de Castro J. G. A. Pocock Translated by Antonia Walford John Boardman 128 William M. Chace Randall Collins Endo/Exo Susan Stephens Matei Candea Ruth Morse 146 Caryl Emerson Joanna Picciotto Of Archipelagos and Arrows The Editors Debbora Battaglia 186 151

Vújà De and the Quintessentialists’ Guild NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 201 Roy Wagner 155 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 similarities 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 symposium 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 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, - - - -

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 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 - - - - 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 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 ------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 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 ------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 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 ------

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 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 .

— - ------

Symposium: Comparative Relativism

THE CHIMERA OF RELATIVISM

A Tragicomedy

Barbara Herrnstein Smith

Whatever sort of thing relativism is taken to be — doctrine, thesis, crime or folly, insight or abyss — it is certainly, from the perspective of intellectual history, exceptionally elusive. Is there a single specifiable claim or denial, even a mini- mally describable “family” of them, shared by Protagoras, Montaigne, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Franz Boas, Paul Feyerabend, Jacques Derrida, Bruno Latour, and the majority of undergraduates on today’s college campuses? All these have been said to “embrace” or “espouse” relativism, or to have “slipped” or “fallen” into it, by reason of some utterance they have made or failed to make, some attitude they have displayed or failed to display.1 Logicians suggest that we are in the presence of relativism when one or another self-evidently solid and important thing (for example, truth, value, mean-

1. See Rom Harré and Michael Krausz, Varieties of Rela- dents, see Judith Jarvis Thomson, Goodness and Advice, ed. tivism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), for an effort to distin- Amy Gutman (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, guish various types of relativism and “to extricate and 2001). For a “postmodern relativism” identified by a failure examine the arguments, abstracted from sources ancient on the part of some scholars to offer certain emphases or and modern, that have been offered for and against the raise certain questions in their work, see Satya Mohanty, main varieties” (1). See Maria Baghramian, Relativism Literary Theory and the Claims of History: Postmodernism, (London: Routledge, 2004), for the idea, in the absence of Objectivity, Multicultural Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni- any clear definition of the topic of her book, of a “family” versity Press, 1997), esp. 130 – 31. of claims, positions, or doctrines. For an unhappy evoca- tion of the moral relativism of contemporary college stu- Common Knowledge 17:1 DOI 10.1215/0961754X-2010-030 © 2011 by Duke University Press

13 Common Knowledge 14 ceptual ceptual scheme “relative to” soft or (forsomething slippery example, ing such ideas as as ideas such also alert us to the historicity and the often far- or said been actually often has What said. been actually has what of distortions always almost are statements contingency, variability, and/or relationality, often labeled relativist or taken as as and/orcontingency, orvariability, nega taken labeled relationality, often relativist these all note I significant. very or tives because the sorts large of observation that very I am describing here always are judgments or tions, - interpreta perceptions, our among differences the that or universe, isolated and have common, in ornothing cultures or or that each period culture is a distinct slate;people dothat aview notblank differenteras they to the from us commit do is notthey mind to us human believe require the that or torically culturally; vary perspectives human that notclaim gloomy.ordo They ministic, being. of of nature that the quite heterogeneous that we situations name seemingly autonomous entities and seemingly inherent of properties and aspects to relational the fact the to us alert relativistic, be to said often kinds, these of statements Rather, real. sense, unproblematic some in be, to take may we that purely such of socialas status stones, things mountains, quarks, germs, or genes that anything of existence called the be could of denials to amount not do conditions of sets lable uncontrol and unpredictable moreless or various on judgments and pretations, orentities Statements properties. about the dependence of our inter perceptions, autonomous as taken concepts or terms these of any about claims not are they tions for familiar ways of andabout talking thinking truth, value, and reality; but communities. our in prevailing idioms verbal and conceptual the including environments, institutional and cultural, social, particular otherwise and cally are affected to oneturn degree or another by, among our histori other things, in these that and ongoing; and past both situations, and experiences particular beliefs as these are affected to one degree or another by, among other our things, with, among other things, our assumptions, expectations, categories, and existing conditions; that what we take to be real, andtrue, good depends upon and varies all under and/or invariant perspectives independent ofbeing of all sense the in objective or universal, absolute, not are judgments and interpretations, tions, Latour to Protagoras from reality , or , The sorts of statements just described are not shallowly reductive, deter reductive, shallowly not are described just statements of sorts The - implica challenging have contingency and variability of statements These reality are often quite complexly constituted and sustained. Such statements statements Such sustained. and constituted complexly quite often are reality ) has been said by some perverse or logically injudicious person to be , or or truth objective individual perspective if it is understood as an autonomous, absolutely privileged realm or to claims about the purely subjective, purely verbal, or verbal, purely subjective, purely aboutthe claims to or truth —

— are statements to the effect that human percep human that effect the to statements are transcendentvalue

as in the case of the figures I have mentioned, mentioned, have I figures the of case the in as , or political political interest from- and to the deeply problematic problematic deeply the to and ). But such X- context truth unproblematic of meaning , , fact culture

, — knowledge

observations of is- , language relative- only , science , his to- con Y ------,

Lee Whorf, Thomas Kuhn, and David Bloor. David and Kuhn, Thomas Whorf, Lee Benjamin as figures important such by century, the laterin and, Fleck Ludwik and Becker, Carl Weber, Durkheim, as theorists social and anthropologists, twentieth- early influential such by recommended as aims disciplinary of pursuit the in awareness such of cultivation explicit the is here ( relativism developfrom everyday observation, as reflected theinaxioms prudential of folk may kind ofthis awareness sharpened a While responses. individual and tions, institu practices, human of variability the of heightenedconsciousness erally develop a gen often anthropologists and historians field, the and archives the in think. or do, feel, to species the of members for inevitable or necessary, natural, is what of views atedfrom virtually their as beginning a reservoir of counterexamples to standard Nevertheless, reports of what seem to be other ways of being have human oper chas reasonableness or perfect absolute and of propriety one’s practices. and views own tolerance the of sense a increase ratify or misanthropy always deepen not readily as just does can It egotism. ten travel, time including travel, in variety of human observation otherpeople. the and course, ofOf othertimes charting or, and tory anthropology more precisely, and historiography ethnography his are question in principles and attitudes ofthe generative most proved have principles involving explanatory or evaluative symmetry. The two disciplines that relativism of doctrine implicit an of reflections 13 Yesterday,” Today and “Relativism, Smith, Herrnstein Barbara reception: its and relativism here on to a symposium prior my see contribution ticular, 2 principles methodological certain of mendation recom the or tolerance, epistemic of those notably attitudes, certain of display the oris label“relativism” charge the elicits whatoften sciences, human the In I implications. unhappy or dubious such just have to said or ways these just made such points against what they saw as dubiously self- self- a cultivate to need consequent the emphasized all and perspectives, individual variableconditionsand culturally and onhistorically practices ideasof and our any doctrine under the label of “relativism”), all of them stressed the dependence proclaimed (and nonethem of relativistic as programs or views their described . . 2 For more on these figures, Becker and Fleck in par in Fleck and Becker figures, these on more For – 3 conscious wariness in their respective fields. These scholars and theorists theorists and scholars These fields. respective their in wariness conscious (Spring– Along with more formsparticular of sophistication arising from their work and so forth), of particular interest interest particular of forth), so and folks different for strokes different Fall 2007 ): ): 227 – 49 , esp. , esp. Common Knowledge Common 234 – 44 . -

— 2 While not all of these figures figures these of all not While

are commonly paraphrased in in paraphrased commonly are —

especially, in recent years, years, recent in especially, privileging aims, claims, century historians, historians, century — the the ------

Smith • The Chimera of Relativism 15 3 Bloor David sociologist and Benedict Ruth anthropologist by . Common Knowledge 16 These intentions are clear in the following passages passages following the in clear are intentions These of Culture of Benedict, (Ruth civilization. Western of that of one variation, study the local have substituted ences sci social major the that himself man of study the in only is It . . . conditions. and forms variant possible all of note take to and material relevant the group to is study of method necessary the nebulae, of nature the con less the all In troversial fieldslike the study consideration. of cacti or termites its or for selects it series the in items the of another or one of weighting ential prefer no be there that requires study scientific Any theories which explain the beliefs which are in fact fact in are which beliefs the explain which theories . seeks . . beliefs. The sociologist false and true to both apply to have will they generality maximum of ment If [the sociologist’s] theories are to the satisfy require ): [ 1934 some, or debilitating implications that they thereupon derive from them from derive thereupon they that implications some,ordebilitating unwhole absurd, atthe alarm or outrage register to on go them, universalizing intellectual, institutional, and historical contexts and improperly absolutizing and bycommentators who, afterplucking those recommended principles from their truth claims. of assessment our in count not should or cannot reasons that or respect of thy wor equally are practices cultural and beliefs all that example, for implication, humanity at large or intended to govern the general conduct of ethical or intellec or ethical of conduct general life. tual the govern to intended or large at humanity to directed they were nor blue, the of out produced words, other in not, were question in principles The practitioners. fellow to explicitly and exclusively less more or directed were remarks their and fields; particular their in methods and commonly evoked under the name “relativism.” name the under evoked commonly “theses” that make up the chimerical beast “claims,”or doctrines, the of generation the in crucial is contexts institutional refuting scholars typically take for granted certain definitions, distinctions, and definitions,distinctions, for take granted certain scholars refuting typically Relativism- universal. or notnecessary local, and contingent historically selves central to their deployment descriptions, in and arguments, are analyses, them is that syntax conceptual the and idioms, those to central are that concepts the factorily practices. in the domains Nevertheless,of disciplinary their customary satis purposes professional their serve and fields own their in established well quite in trained are they that vated, often exceptionally well- moti ethically sometimes intelligent, by efforts critical of issue the largely itis product the of dishonestincompetent or intellectually people. contrary, the On ; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, Mifflin, Houghton ; Boston: chimera This 3 This last point requires special emphasis because it is routinely missed it emphasis because missed is routinely special point requires last This 4 Indeed, the obliteration of relevant historical, intellectual, and and intellectual, historical, relevant of obliteration the Indeed, — heresy fantasy elsewhere, it called have I or,as 1959 Patterns Patterns ], 3 ], particular ) - - - - trained people.trained must What be added, however, is 4 Reply to Barbara Herrnstein Smith,” Smith,” Herrnstein to Reply Barbara (Anti- Contemporary in Knowledge of Conceptions Relativist and “Constructivist hossian, Bog Paul see knowledge, scientific of sociology the for of Bloor’s tenets four paraphrase universalized improperly and related relativism- and terly Philosopher,” Analytic an to “Reply Press, University York:Oxford (New Constructivism and Relativism Against Knowledge: of Fear terly . For the extraction of the latter implication from an an from implication latter the of extraction the For University of Chicago Press, Press, of Chicago University Bloor, .(David tenets. four following the to adhere should knowledge scientific of sociology sketched the that been suggest just have that approaches The . . . them. evaluates investigator the how of regardless found,

101 101 conceptual idioms. Such idioms may be . . 1 1

(Winter 2002 (Winter — (Winter (Winter [ Imagery Social and Knowledge

part part straw man, part red herring 2002 refuting moves. refuting ): ): ): ): 213 229 – – 27 42 ; repeated in Boghossian, ; in Boghossian, repeated 1991 , for discussion of these these of discussion for , South Atlantic Quar Atlantic South South Atlantic Quar Atlantic South ], 5 ], ) Epistemology: A Epistemology: ) 2006 , 1976 7 ). ). See Smith, ; Chicago: Chicago: ; —

— is not is

the the

— ------

such such as what between those are referred to as concepts and relations that are at issue (concepts such as but slain, lies already always Relativism beast called The deadlock. chimerical perfect For Searle, as for Boghossian, it is self- is it Boghossian, for as Searle, For evidence.” as count can things of kinds certain “only that as . . questions such and to . is answer evidence?” the What able to being a commitment carries turn in “commitment of a to fact,” existence the this and that committed thereby a such who “anyone is that makes statement of rationality” affecting weight. Of course, Native American tribal leg tribal American Native course, Of weight. affecting sense conviction- of significant having and socially cally - psychologi the in evidence as count do and can accounts traditional some in communities, that, effect togist) the by an anthropolo an (here, outsider observation empirical motivated ideologically merely as regard therefore Accordingly, legends. tribal in understand can nor Searle Boghossian neither transmitted accounts tional - tradi include not do evidence as count can that things terms the erwise particular discursive- particular erwise It?” YouBelieve Should “Why Searle, John in found be can presuppositions relations conceptual 5 or defend explain to much them thought it necessary or finding giving without the now well- of science abide historians and by anthropologists Most cultural itscourse. run to which the relativism- and cannot fortake granted the concepts, definitions,and distinctions, relations not to they are be chargedthe foolish and saying saying who with things do not themselves know who relativists, alleged the for force intellectual no have can reason book book his in relativism against arguments Boghossian’s Paul ing Searle lands, its occupy to say might originally about came how tribe his American Native a what example, for discussing, in Thus ments. figure in a set of purportedly relativism- language,” and of thought structure fundamental the into “built are entailments logical certain that idea the with (September 24 (September claims of the alleged relativists are indeed absurd or appalling. or absurd indeed are relativists alleged the of claims alleged the that demonstrate to syntax, and idioms conceptual their whoshare appear,andarguments their relations, thoseat toleast distinctions, definitions, presupposed to those arguments their in appeal former the ferent Because ways. an embracing relativism absurd or appalling . A recent example of the significant operation of such such of operation significant the of example recent A

— Fear of Knowledge There are signs that this tragicomic episode of intellectual history may have

as one of as

— statement

that is, because the relativism- the because is, that , 2009 established methodological principles of their respective disciplines “the philosophical undead,” it always walks again. walks undead,” it always philosophical “the , ): ): fact — 88 — , observes that it that is a observes “requirement –

Books of Review York New that other scholars here summarizing and endors and summarizing here evidence 92 , where historically and oth and historically , where conceptual deployments of of deployments conceptual refuters appeal. rationality and , evident that the the that evident refuting argu — and both and both

— ,

refuters deploy refuters depend and very on the — The result is pure nonengagement pure is and result The along along 56

precisely those whom they charge with the the . 14 — - - - - - facts

have have come dif to view in crucially to systematically related definitions of terms like like of terms definitions related to systematically reference intervalidating with operate that ways particular nality as insofar except rationality” of requirement[s] “the to do with little have Moreover, reasons language.” those of [all?] and [any?] thought structure into fundamental the “built anything with do to nothing have contexts these in weight But do they the reasons not claims. have evidentiary factual regarding other each address anthropologists ern or when of West Western philosophers, in the arguments or courts, States United in evidence as count not do ends fact cularity involved, see Smith, Smith, see involved, cularity error of his or her thinking on the crucial issues. crucial the on thinking or her of his error refuted tively puta thus thinkers major the of none heads, their over Knowledge question- resultant the of discussion For Smith, “Unloading the Self- “Unloading Smith, see relativism, at refuting aimed arguments of many ture Latour or Rorty, rida, Theory Undead,” Philosophical Other and Realism, 6 Resistance and evidence and .

See See , and , and is itselfand definedquitehistoricallyin otherwise

Joseph Rouse, “Vampires: Social Constructivism, Constructivism, Social “Vampires: Joseph Rouse, 41 evidence , reason relations and truth , . 1 73 2 ( . 2 2002 – — (Fall (Fall 87 ) . For an analysis of the self- of the . Foranalysis an for example, Feyerabend, Foucault, Der Foucault, Feyerabend, example, for

. — 5 ): ): But, for the same same the for But, 60 1993

their arguments – 6 — . For all the logical ink poured poured ink logical the For 78. all ): ): has acknowledged the alleged alleged the acknowledged has 81 Refutation Charge,” Charge,” Refutation Belief and Resistance and Belief – 95 , reprinted in in reprinted , - begging struc begging affirming cir affirming History and and History Belief and and Belief statement , Common Common 118 ratio – 24 ------, . Smith • The Chimera of Relativism 17 7 ture or the impossibility of any cross- of any impossibility or the ture - cul ofevery uniqueness total the as maintained) are they views (where notto such hypertrophic reflexivity, inclusive self- and symmetry, explanatory contextualization, tural relativity and to the historicity of such concepts as as concepts such of historicity the to and relativity 8 institutions. or behavior human about tions Press, Press, Epistemology Communitarian Kusch, Martin Vocation Modern Late a of History Moral Press, Chicago knowledge a set of standard philosophical refutation- philosophical a set of standard against handily defended relativism,” “epistemological of Press, Chicago of sity Giere, N. 1996 Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: eds., Levinson, C. Stephen . . Common Knowledge 18 - cul and historical as principles such to here refer I For recent works attesting to the extent of linguistic linguistic of extent the to attesting works recent For 2002 objectivityand , Scientific Perspectivism ). For other recent philosophical defenses of of defenses philosophical recent other For). Knowledge by Agreement: The Programme of of Programme The Agreement: by Knowledge 2006 or would- protectors from primarily issue to seem they discourse, contemporary voicedin are clearly designed to discredit one or another currently significant challenge. significant currently one another or discredit to designed clearly are mental mechanisms underlying all human thought, behavior, and culture. and behavior, thought, human all underlying mechanisms mental them to them anyone. unity of mankind” of unity psychic “the as to refer they what of evidence have now we anthropologists, cognitive and psychologists evolutionary group of influential an to According II ills. social other and of oppression face the in neutrality ing debilitat politically lead to convictions relativist that charge or fear the involves ism is refuted by the demonstrated existence of cognitive universals. The second relativ cultural that claim the on centers first The attention. special require are said to be scientificgrounds. Two contemporary sites ofantirelativist energy as relativism linger, and there are also recent toefforts refute relativism on what spectives),about anxieties implications the or consequences of what is identified puses. live folk- genial a worse, or better for while, such, as theses relativity- defend and detail unapologetically now philosophers and current philosophical literature and elsewhere. Indeed, some younger logicians sures and refutations of what is named “relativism” appear to be diminished in the itivist scientism, realist- scientism, itivist ) seems to prevail among students on many of our de facto multicultural cam ) on seems among to students ofmany prevail our de multicultural facto ); Steven Shapin, Shapin, ); Steven 2008 In spite of these hopeful developments (hopeful, at least, from some per some from least, at (hopeful, developments hopeful these ofspite In 8 , see, e.g., John J. Gumperz and and Gumperz J. John e.g., see, , Where full- Where Rethinking Linguistic Relativity ). For a rigorous articulation articulation rigorous Fora ). (Oxford: Oxford University University Oxford (Oxford: be be restorers of some or threatened faded orthodoxy (Chicago: University of of University (Chicago: 7 cultural generaliza cultural The Scientific Life: A Life: Scientific The At the same time, the scope, force, and interest of formal expo formal of interest and force, scope, the time, same the At (Chicago: Univer (Chicago:

— throated formal denunciations of relativism continue to be be to continue relativism of denunciations formal throated arguments, see see arguments,

specifically, the existence of innate, evolved, universal universal evolved, innate, of existence the specifically, epistemology,infallibilism Vatican or rationalist ); Ronald );Ronald science - - ,

1998 son, Truth García- Manuel see issue, the of treatments philosophical current of view and over for a useful “relativism” named what is explicitly hossian, hossian, 9 18 April Pontifice,” Romana Eligendo “Pro homily, XVI), Benedict Pope (now Ratzinger Cardinal Joseph tivism,” - Knowledge in contributors various by discussed and English in in Culture,” of Foundations Psychological “The Cosmides, Oxford University Press, Press, University Oxford Culture of eration 10 eligendo- .

. , The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Gen the and Psychology Evolutionary Mind: Adapted The

- Wil O. E. relativism,” “postmodern versus e.g., See, 2005 For the general claim, see esp. John Tooby and Leda Tooby Leda John and esp. see claim, general Forthe (New York: Knopf, Knopf, York: (New The of Unity Knowledge Consilience: ), ), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008 Press, University Oxford (Oxford: 182 Fear of Knowledge (www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-

; versus “relativism and constructivism,” Bog constructivism,” and “relativism versus ; 13 pontifice_ . 2 – 3 Carpintero and Max Kölbel, eds., eds., Kölbel, Max and Carpintero (Spring– , ed. Jerome H. Barkow et al. (Oxford: (Oxford: al. et Barkow H. Jerome ed. , 20050418 relativist ethos ( ethos relativist 1992 ; versus a “dictatorship of rela of “dictatorship a versus ; Fall ), ), 2007 _it.html), translated into into translated _it.html), 19 — – for example, pos 136 ). . live and let affirming affirming ). Common Common — Relative Relative and and pro 10 9 ------

continues: Atran beliefs, supernatural of features general other various describing After 2 world (and each other’s worlds).” other’s (and each world ceptual worlds that are profoundly and incommensurably different from our own science to that people effect the who live ‘traditional’. in . . live con in cultures of history and philosophy the psychology, side and ofanthropology, ‘relativist’ “there that is a wholong- pologistmaintains Atran, Scott claims. “relativist” alleged certain undercuts mechanisms universal such of existence demonstrable the that argument attendant however,here,the me is concerns What scientists. of view, this which is by no means accepted by psychologists all or cognitive Questions can be raised about the empirical basis and conceptual coherence has a soul. a has transformed himself into a dog, that a person “ensouls” a house, and that a house sense made that way any in restate to or “we” (contemporary educated Westerners, presumably) that wouldMexico of Mayans Itza’ findthe among recorded hard beliefs some tolists believethen Atran “another in live just societies world.” those in people the that seem so intermeshed are ingly phenomena supernatural and natural standpoint, Western where, a from “exotic,” societies “primitive,” or those from “traditional” come to thought is relativism cultural for support striking most The 1 facts”: following light of the included, would find such beliefs readily recognizable and and recognizable readily beliefs such find would included, self- anthropologists, tural - cul many certainly and readers Many point. his make 13 marks. quotation in puts he that below, and here phrases, the for or stated thus views the 12 84 11 scape of Religion ......

Scott Atran, Atran, Scott Atran, Atran, Atran’s examples appear singularly ill chosen to chosen ill singularly appear examples Atran’s subsequently unaffected by the nature of the input. of the nature the by unaffected subsequently inputprocess cultural (information) in ways that are variously triggered but recurrenceThis owes chiefly touniversal cognitivethat mechanisms beliefs] across historically isolated cultures. . . . cultures. isolated historically across beliefs] There is considerable recurrence of symbolic content [of supernatural The argument just described appears in a appears just described recent The argument anthro book by cognitive 12 In Gods We Trust We Gods In 13 On such beliefs, he comments as follows: as he comments beliefs, such On (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Press, University Oxford (Oxford: In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Land Evolutionary The We Trust: Gods In , described cultural relativists relativists cultural described 84 . Atran gives no sources for for sources no gives Atran . 11 According to “this Atran, claim is mistaken in 2002 — for example, that a certain sorcerer certain a that example, for ), ), - cultures. Western people byin educated accepted generally beliefs different from instructively) deViveiros suggests, Castro Eduardo as sometimes, (and significantly from distinct as nonsensical study they people ofthe beliefs the found having their on, depend not does certainly by,and vated moti not is anthropologists cultural most of relativism cultural The strained. already is here point But his terms. credible- them in have familiar, no trouble restating standing claim on the claim standing - - - enough enough

—

- • Smith The Chimera of Relativism 19 14

. Common Knowledge 20

Atran, Atran, In Gods We Trust Gods In tence as sunrise and nightfall ortenceand nightfall recurrence the of as sunrise salient such humanly objects, widespread such for example, highly specific, content- mythic and religious themes can be explained without recourse to the positing of circular. totally is explanation- purported the other, ontoand each bootstrapped are it for evidence ethnographic the and claim universalist The mechanisms. that mecha the only thing that can explain cognitive such recurrences is the universal operation of offor suchoffers he basis only existence the but nisms, the for evidence are recurrences such that recurrenceof thematic the content claims of beliefs. various Atran supernatural innately determined and content- and determined innately task- . . . evolved are that structures cognitive by “unconstrained is (and incoherent particular very mind the stated)that as technically claim the as glossed properly is flexible” is mind human “the that observation general quite common, quite the whether is One argument. Atran’s of force rhetorical and activities phers that “the human mind” among the wide of other variety cosmologies things, encountered by ethnogra pologists and relativism- different profoundly are daily in the same faculty- same the in daily and But flexible. is mind human the that is idea worlds;the ofother people. The conclusion ispeople that different conceptually live in can beliefs strange the about data ethnographic from support, drawing wrongly idea an and drawn, wrongly conclusion a of speaks Atran argument. the of cularity content- . . evolved . task- are that structures cognitive by unconstrained mind a is, that mind, human the of ibility flex the for support as taken be turn, in may, worlds different ently worlds. different everyday conceptually That people abide such appar in live just Itza’ the we and that conclude we might foregoing From the a “fact” out of Atran’s cognitive- Atran’s of out “fact” a are Contrary to Atran’s contention, the widespread recurrence of various various of recurrence widespread the contention, Atran’s to Contrary Two other questions may be asked here that are significant for the logical the logical for significant are herethat asked Twobe may questions other The somewhat awkward phrasing here obscures the tenuousness and cir they wrongly concluded? Is it not the case that people, even some who eat constraining. But this conclusion is wrong. is conclusion this But constraining.

, — 86

. is flexible? is constraining universal cognitive mechanisms. One notes, refuting philosophers? And is it wrong to conclude from, — club dining rooms, can live in conceptual worlds that conceptual in live can rooms, clubdining for example, as I suggest above, relativizing anthro relativizing above, suggest I as example, for

— — specific or innately determined and and determined innately or specific

pancultural indeed which of course names a range of capacities and universals explanation for the cross- the for explanation universals tures that are . . . content- . . . are that tures struc cognitive by “unconstrained is mind the it, he puts as that, claim incoherent manifestly the debate to bother 15 constraining.” .

Atran’s writing is careless. Presumably he would not not would he Presumably careless. is writing Atran’s that claim is his simultaneous insistence insistence simultaneous his is claim 14 15 — The second is what makes makes what is second The conditions of human exis of human conditions constraining.” is either of these wrong, wrong, these of either - - proof refutation refutation proof specific or specific cultural cultural ------mental mechanisms. They would also reject the mind- the reject also would They mechanisms. mental dubious account of the generation of supernatural concepts by highly specialized otherwise and reductive Atran’s development reject would psychological or tive sense.” “moral popular currently the to ability language from universal, cognitive or human putative social, and cultural worlds. cultural and social, physical, particular in experiences of individual our traces the with cies and also tenden and traits individuated highly less moreor other our with continuously interact operations, actual their in must, they exist, may tendencies or traits, capacities, cognitive (“universal”) specieswide various although that, is instead not claim that the human mind is altogether unconstrained. they indicateWhat blank slate of classic empiricism or cultural- innatist, adaptationist view of mind and cognition that Atran invokes here as fac as here invokes Atran that established. tually cognition and mind of view adaptationist innatist, strongly the to alternatives contemporary important also are There dreams. and illness warfare, and journeys snakes, and birds as experiences and events, 16 seeking not to only olderseeking displace and no doubtapproaches but limited seek also factions in the contemporary social sciences, with so- beliefs. The areconflicts overthe contestedinstitutional dominance ofdifferent ogy orcontingent culturally experience, is decisive in shaping the content of our neurophysiol evolved Nurture, or Nature whether notover are they buthere, has much authority in the current intellectual world. intellectual current the in authority much has or strict environmental determinists among behaviorists or Jesuits, none of them anthropology in spurious. remaining If there determinists are any pure cultural as shaped over evolutionary time. The conflict ofviews that evokes Atran here is neurophysiology ofhuman features general from arising forces including ucts, and prod processes forces noton cognitive to deny of the existence constraining flexible,thein sense of being responsiveand capable of ongoing modification, is flex is ible. These characteristic, are not mutually species a exclusive as or observations. To maintain that the individually mind is either taken mind,” human “the oper its and forces, and respects; many in multiple or “constrained” by limited of course are products and shaped ations is term, the understand we however mind, individual The cognition. of account mentalist strongly own his to alternative major only the is implies and “relativism” oddly,as somewhat to, refers Atran Press, Press, (New Haven, CT:Religion Yaleand University Science of Smith, Herrnstein Barbara see cognition, human of views native alter relevant of discussion for as well as examples, and .

For a more extensive examination of Atran’s argument of argument Atran’s For examination a more extensive 200 Theorists and scientists proposing these alternative views of cogni views human alternative these proposing and scientists Theorists Natural Reflections: Human Cognition at the Nexus Nexus the at Cognition Human Reflections: Natural 9 ), ), 10 – 19 , 62

Such alternative views do not, as he suggests, come down to the the to down come suggests, he as not, do views alternative Such – 64 . 16 The point is significant for the operation of any of operation the for significant is point The environmental determinism; they do - of the young. of the to minds the shape or training power of conditioning early 17 .

Behaviorists and Jesuits have famously spoken of the of spoken the have famously Jesuits and Behaviorists called cognitive approaches 17 There are real conflicts conflicts real are There as- blank- slate view that that view slate ------

Smith • The Chimera of Relativism 21 Press, Press, Derek Melser, 200 Press, MIT [Cambridge, MA: Perception in Action ing Cognition: The Primacy of Action, Intention, and Emotion and Academic, Imprint U.K.: [Thorverton, Intention, Action, of Primacy The Cognition: ing e.g.,and Walter Núñez eds., Raphael J. Freeman, (see, features interactive dynamic, their stress that cesses Press, MIT MA: Evolution and Systems Developmental tingency: eds., al., et Oyama Susan (see Theory tems 18 .

Common Knowledge 22 Prominent among the latter are Developmental Sys Developmental are latter the among Prominent 2004 ]; Michael Wheeler, Wheeler, Michael ]; The Act of Thinking of Act The hensible neutrality or political passivity. repre ethically to lead convictions relativistic that charge or fear the is This now toother the objection current Iturn toI that mentioned relativism earlier. III herring. straw a is elsewhere, often as here, “Relativism” ing to holdnewer against ground and moretheir arguably developments. fertile (or can imagine vividly enough), to maintain an otherwise proper neutrality. proper otherwise an enough), maintain to vividly imagine (or can of lives on people of the suchpractices hescious of or effects well she the knows may be too anthropologist involved in the outcome orof too such struggles, con tions, the determinedly impartial sociologist of science or symmetry- Under condi such cutting. genital female as practices on exotic such impartially schools. Similarly, a Western- by biology efforts teachers to present in evolution public without high disclaimers hard to treat current, local promotions of biblical creationism symmetrically it with find may science of sociologist impartial conscientiously otherwise an cans), for For the themselves. scholars strained example (quite close to home for Ameri able.Moreover, under tosuchconditions become likely are at neutrality efforts objection perspectives, certain from and, improper appear will evenhandedly sides all treat to and symmetry methodological maintain to scholars other and anthropologists, historians, by efforts home, to closer come conflicts those as and conflicts, consequential become judgments and interpretations, ceptions, per human of variability described theoretically the As originates. anxiety or of science were dismayed by their colleague SteveFuller’s colleague recondite their accountofbyof science were dismayed tives, politically culpable politically tives, itmembership, or improper may alliance, be ethically friendship, obligationsof kinship, towhom recognized nities one generally has dif people involves commu or Where, moreover,theconflict understandably impartial. is be to it ficult identity, personal of sense or history personal one’s in up nor and in neither caught the remote current, hypothetical sharp, butpast, actual, 2001 ]) and other views of cognitive pro of cognitive views other ]) and Where a conflict ofviews Reconstructing the Cogni [Cambridge, MA: MIT MIT MA: [Cambridge, 1999 [Cambridge, [Cambridge, Cycles of Con of Cycles ]; Alva Noë, Noë, ];Alva

Reclaim —

for one to remain neutral. Thus, many sociologists sociologists many Thus, neutral. foroneremain to educated anthropologist may find it hard to report 4

]; ]; — - - - - -

perceptions, interpretations, or judgments Symposium,” Symposium,” A Quietism: for “Apology See journal. this in published recently themes on these symposium extended it of forms certain of defenses (Spring (Spring 19 2005 [Cambridge,Step Next Press, MIT MA: The World: tive . “quietism” of charges and fears Related ]). 19 2010 2009 One can understand how the charge charge how the understand can One ), ), ), ), Common Knowledge Common 16 15 . 3 . 3 (Fall (Fall (Fall — 2010 2009 and, and, from some perspec ). ), ), 16

— 15 . 1 . are discussed in the the in discussed are 1 (Winter (Winter (Winter 2009 (Winter maintaining maintaining — 2010 along with with along Sotto Voce Sotto ), ), ), ),

— 16 15

18 . . is 2 2 ------

Press, Press, University Princeton NJ: (Princeton, Subject Feminist the Science of and intellectually responsible intellectually and best the elsewhere, often as Here, themselves. ent and obligations, and also by the relevant of the conditions particulars that pres identities, histories, personal our of particulars relevant the by us of each for determined are times say,would those I Rather, advance. in or abstract the in nists. mode of agency comparable personal to offorms agency valued by Western femi women’s Muslim ofself- representation larly, many feminist scholars were disturbed by anthropologist Saba Mahmood’s during his testimony his during a in recent school- Design Intelligent and theory evolutionary of status scientific comparable the 21 science. involving on issues public to judgments offer a refusal entails science of sociology of pursuit the that idea the rejects pointedly in testimony his ing 20 Design. Intelligent of moters put the science the pro in with establishment, him against ideological alignment wonder mayalso to what extent Fuller’s sentiments,directed populist generally orthe history threat of physical violence under which they may have acted. One tures of the lives and situations of the Muslim women she studied fea relevant crucially the all presented Mahmood that notclear itis Similarly, and condescension), she could share with her subjects. In short, it is not clear that aPakistani- as which, mosquemovementIslam, toward of a protectiveness reflected degree women’s Egyptian the of representation her in neutrality strict Mahmood’s I believe there there believe I or and advocacy to explicit critique be up. taken aside and for partisanship strong byrelativist commitments is to relativize even further social scientist, on behalf of the crypto- of the on behalf scientist, social lectual, educational, and political consequences of his testimony, as a credentialed long- donethe have might he as carefully as considered Fuller that atIt aboutnotthem. is clear,toarrived reasonspeculate how they for example, also and decisions respective however, abouttheir argument, for room is There Mahmood were responsive to the relevance of various contingent circumstances. circumstances. of contingent forms the significance, for oneselfas for others, ofeven broaderranges and moresubtle . .

Saba Mahmood, Saba Mahmood, For an exchange between Fuller and his critics regard and critics his Fuller Forbetween an exchange 2005 21 It may be presumed that, in their public actions as scholars, both Fuller and There is, it might be said, a time for programmatic symmetry to belaid There is,it mightsymmetry for besaid, programmatic a time 36.6 ). (December 2006 bornwoman (and view in of ongoing displays of Western arrogance are Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and and Revival The Islamic of Piety: Politics Kitzmiller v.Dover Kitzmiller such times. But I also believe that they are not are determinable they that believe But also I times. such ): ): 819 –

22 — 5 , see see , And similarly, one may wonder to what extent extent what to wonder may one similarly, And 3

. Fuller himself himself Fuller . way to handle the apparent difficulties created apparentdifficulties the handle to way Social Studies Studies Social creationist side in the school- sidethe in creationist board trial in the in Unitedboard trial States. subjection to patriarchal teachings as a a as teachings patriarchal to subjection - services.” Steve Fuller, “Letter to the Editor,” the to “Letter Fuller, Steve services.” my offering from refrained and situation the of features these of heed taken have would I presumably relativist, a of more been I “Had observes: players,” powerful more by pawns as treated being of history a and presence lic and, noting that science- that noting and, relativism disavows explicitly Fuller trial, Dover the in 22 ( 2009 .

In a subsequent commentary on his participation participation his on commentary subsequent a In — ): ): 115

most ethically responsive responsive ethically most — –

thatis, to acknowledge 16 .

—

for example, studies fields “have a weak pub weak a “have fields studies range intel range board trial. board 20 Simi ------

Isis

10 0 . 1 - Smith • The Chimera of Relativism 23 Common Knowledge 24 perspectives and interests ments (including one’s own) and of the sometimes significant variability of human and of judg interpretations, perceptions, contingency human and torical cultural convictions such that obvious seems contrary,it the On convictions. relativist bywhat called are not are diminished energies their that clear is it described, just dimensions pragmatic and ethical broad the of terms in assessed and described are activities over,political when have evoked here, do not or make ethical political judgments impossible. More broadly shared social goals. For these reasons, relativistic views, in the senses I less effective in achieving either the particular political ends sought or some more sense of being more rather less than ethically responsive the and morein worse rather than than rather better judged be can actions political respects, these all In people. of ranges narrower than rather wider for consequences for and for broader and longer- be determined with greater rather than lesser concern for possible consequences, more less rather extensive, than accurate, and relevant. Political also actions can mined more rather less than andthoughtfully on the basis of information that is deter be can critiques, or advocacy either and partisanship our by taken forms sponsible or politically culpable quietism. Clearly, the ways we act politically, the irre ethically with consciousness a ofsuch association improper fundamentally think, I and, facile the against something say to want I But views. relativistic on culturally and historically variable perspectives variable historically and con culturally on cultivated a by situations charged sciousness of the dependence of our politically perceptions, interpretations, and judgments and/or ethically in presented be struggle. political current of some bias, muffled by a claim or show of forfairness, whatviewed is theas wrong side relevantofa but evidence objectionable neutrality notpolitically is onstrations demsuch in of relativism critics what Indeed, may disturb so impartial. actually these two seeming demonstrations of objectionable were relativistic impartiality Such considerations may also make one hesitate oneintervention.toneswhich for anda denunciation an in issues terms or calls the qualify may perspectives alternative and conditions unknown of relevance possible the of consciousness strong a For example, them. at arrives one which They may, however, affect the form of the actions one takes and the processes by Way. the and Truth the regarding convictions objectivist as actions undertaken by someone with resolutely absolutist,universalist, and/or responsiveethically andthan also, in the long atrun, least as politically effective range of range options clear, however, that these are politically undesirable history the sorry As effects. The preceding discussion acknowledges the genuine difficulties thatmay difficulties genuine acknowledges the discussion preceding The Relativistic considerations do not commonly paralyze personal agency. agency. personal paralyze commonly not do considerations Relativistic

—

beforeororder an onegives a gun grabs to fire one. It is not term rather than only immediate and local consequences, and consequences, only local immediate term rather than — would tend to make someone’s activities both more both someone’s make to tend would activities — that is, an acute consciousness of the his of the consciousness acute an is, that

—

take take more time, review a wider

—

or what are often called called often are what or ------proposals for responding to the use and/or abuse of drugs. to use of and/or the abuse drugs. for responding proposals contemporary various of Derrida Jacques by analysis an expressed in sloganized forms ( forms sloganized in expressed tions convic relativistic not all of But, course, compromising. nor politically ethically and contingency of what operates as the real, the ortrue, the good 24 Charge.” Self- the “Unloading Smith, see point, this of 77 recognized. exposure valid quite convictions tivist us. haunt or us hit to back come commonly conviction unshakable of show a for or solidarity of sake the overlookfor we variability the and deny we contingencies the suggests, interventions movementsand political many of charge shaming intellectually the with association its ancient involve may also losophers Press, University Theory Critical for spectives Smith, Herrnstein 23 everything- an as such positions, crude or foolish with relativism of equation philosophical recurrent describe coherently, and almost impossible to argue about productively. the Also detailedearlier, relativism makes a genuine headache about, to difficult to think as elusiveness, exceptional its For thing, one distasteful. be can topic, a itas to Thereare manyreasons why invocation the of relativism, or even just reference IV observations. concluding some me to brings recognition This motives (for base example, to very otherwise justify objectionable with or self- condescendingly) example, (for manners bad very with bad or good and, for that reason and others, leads to its strenuous disavowal by thinkers whose tivistic. whose thinkers by disavowal might well be regarded as rela characterizations, strenuous a given ofviews, range familiar its to leads others, and reason that for and, people scrupulous ethically and amongbadintellectually understandably name lazy, voicing or of cynical relativist slogans, as just described, gives relativism an where it would be descriptively apt. descriptively be whereitwould goes nihilism, operates as a distinct disincentive to introduction of the term, even . – .

. The strenuous rejection of relativism among phi among of relativism rejection 78. strenuous The For analysis of these dubious equations, see Barbara Barbara see equations, dubious these of Foranalysis Such a disavowal occurs, for example, at the end of are When thoughtfully worked and putthrough into thoughtfully responsibly,When practice rela 24 thoughtfully worked through or responsibly evoked. On the contrary, contrary, the On evoked. responsibly or workedthrough thoughtfully If we If seek to fire- dispel ,

and so forth), such ideas can be voiced mindlessly, lazily, and often often and lazily, voicedmindlessly, be can ideas such forth), so and 1988 Contingencies of Value: Alternative Per Alternative Value: of Contingencies —

— ), ), of self- of 150

in the sense of a cultivated consciousness of the variability variability the of consciousness cultivated aof sense the in (Cambridge, MA: Harvard – is- — 54 refutation. For discussion Fordiscussion refutation. equal- and, of course, sometimes sometimes of and, course, , and and , Belief and Resistance and Belief to- everybody has his own opinion own his has everybody everything- breathing chimeras, these difficulties be must difficulties these chimeras, breathing 23 23 Refutation Refutation Most significantly, perhaps, the mindless, mindless, the perhaps, Mostsignificantly, - - , else egalitarianism or an anything- an or egalitarianism else and evenhandedness: and symmetry methodological to committed explicitly and contingency of mindful thoroughly is itself analysis The individual experience and by a socio- a by and experience need individual will these situation, ofto each by be guided a concern for singularity the evolving progressively given, any in And compromises. unstable and negotiations, lead to equivocations, only can emergency, an this In them. condemn absolutely never can one practices, these of other the or one the either absolutely justify to impossible is it Since . . . discourse. liberal the as be can justified “interdiction” of discourse the . . . circumstance the on Depending serving serving policies or practices). , who’s to say what’s say who’s to

—

are neither just as well or just as badl as just or well as just - - - political analysis analysis political

y Smith • The Chimera of Relativism 25 Jacques Derrida, “The Rhetoric of Drugs,” in in Drugs,” of Rhetoric “The Derrida, Jacques CA: Stanford University Press, Press, University Stanford CA: 1974 Interviews, Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life of Time the and Derrida Atheism: study, recent his in Hägglund Martin by quoted is thinking that he terms “hyperpoliticization”: he terms that thinking political of form a of explication sympathetic Hägglund’s Press, University ford Common Knowledge 26 sible. I say this not to avoid the question any more than than more any relativism. for question argue to do I the avoid to not this say I sible. pos as tuned finely as and broadly as once at is that ues, no principle, no demand or political struggle) can can struggle) or political no demand no principle, ues, - val of set (no nothing thinking, Forhyperpolitical a variability or contingencyare invoked variability and applied objectionably tive universal truth, value, or transcendent criteria. Rather, when general ideas of objec of conceptions dubious otherwise reaffirm or up shore to us it oblige does with bad manners or base motives does not make such observations invalid. Nor to plead for tolerance, toneglect. justify But occasional or even frequent delivery ous of claims or objectivity universality, to incomprehensible explain difference, dubi challenge to gleefully, despairingly, faith, bad in faith, good in ironically, earnestly, motives: and affects of variety a with articulated been have variable, essentially are judgments and interpretations, perceptions, that or contingent, all kinds to make a world and there’s no point arguing about tastes. Of course that that course Of tastes. about tastes. philosophical worlds and intellectual arguing include would point no there’s and world a make to kinds all doubt a matter of personal temperament. As folk- of It’s life. a pursuit in sensible no and see ethical as others them useful nihilistic; ficklenessand faithlessness. Some people regardthese remindersas pessimistic or of all that we hold important, the perishability of all that we cherish, and our own They are disagreeable because they oblige us to recognize the limited significance endat struggles. of the our or justice endat efforts of the our notmay truth be there that and control, our under notaltogether are meanings our that fragile, are achievements our that us remind they because disagreeable are variability or humiliation of mortality. Observations of radical contingency and irreducible “relativism.” creature cloudy orat that contingency, or vari ability of observations general at not involved, obscurantism or cynicism, laziness, our/their in culture” immediatelyconsequential objectionable “traditional as off practice is shrugged ill- where an – 1994 2008 , ed. Elisabeth Weber (Stanford, (Stanford, Weber Elisabeth ed. , General observations to the effect that meanings and values are radically Finally, the horror or embarrassment of relativism is, I the horror suspect, ), ), 234 1995 considered view is lazily excused as “just one man’s“just as opinion” excused oran lazily is considered view . The quotation follows follows quotation The . (Stanford, CA: Stan CA: (Stanford, ), ), 239

— . The passage passage The .

then exposure and criticism are properlyare andcriticism at directed the exposure then Points ...... Points Radical Radical - -

the term, are such disavowals thought necessary? thought disavowals such are term, the of of usages experiences of as the result what individual or history, intellectual of considerations specific what of basis the on ask: might one generally, More mean. to to” in it understood or for” are “giv[ing] “argu[ing] of in what, each the question case, absolutism- of articulations ous rigor exceptionally to appended relativism undefined give in to relativism” ( relativism” to in give is not to a To condition such assert constitution. poral tem its of because contestation to open remain must of what itand basis not on does the include challenged be can order] political [any it legitimacy, ultimate an having than Rather . . . itself. in good as posited be relativist wisdom has it, it takes 84 18 – 85 ). These disavowals of an ). disavowals These rejecting views raise raise views rejecting relativism

—

for instance, forinstance, and either either and - - - - - Symposium: Comparative Relativism

MULTIDIMENSIONAL REALITY

G. E. R. Lloyd

Barbara Herrnstein Smith does an excellent job of exposing the polyvalence of “relativism” and of identifying the principal common assumptions concerning such concepts as truth, values, meaning, and reality, to which it is thought to pose a threat. My aim, in this short commentary, is not so much to critique her analysis as to supplement it. In a whole series of contexts, relativism is not only no threat but must be accepted as a part of any complete answer, though not by itself the whole of such an answer. My tactics will be first to rehearse some historical data from ancient Greek and Chinese thinkers to illustrate their recognition of some of the problems and indeed some attempted resolutions of them. I shall then turn to our contemporary issues, where I shall concentrate on criticizing some of the oversimplifications found on both sides of the polemic. It is not a matter of choosing between psychic unity and psychic diversity, for both evidently capture elements of what we need for a correct understanding, leaving the main problem as that of charting the extent of the manifestations of each. Again the issue is not whether value judgments are possible — in my view, they are inevitable — but rather to recognize their provisional status and to unmask the covert assumptions by which they may be influenced. By Plato’s day, it was already a commonplace of Greek thought that the different peoples by whom the Greeks were surrounded had divergent views on right and wrong, good and evil, and that they adopted various customs and practices with regard to sexual behavior, how to treat the dead, and so on. Scores of

27 1 2 Ethics ( it” define would intelligence practical with ( us to position involving choice and in lying the mean relative . . Common Knowledge 28 Plato, Plato, Aristotle defines virtue or excellence ( excellence or virtue defines Aristotle

1106 pros hemas Symposium b : 36 : ff.). and again offer some instructive observations. For example, the the For example, observations. instructive some offer again and themselves. Chinese the of those and tribes foreign of practices and customs the between third- issues moral modeof relativism he accepts insistence and his on there being right to answers the between incompatibility no is there heldthat evidently Aristotle response. is there individual, for given any not occasion, on given that any mean butjust because there are no to algorithms determine thecorrect response does ( intelligence of practical exercise the how demands behave to Besides, millionaire. a weredonor the if niggardly as rate would charity a to donation generous a person, poor a for be, Butwouldwhat stinginess. and extravagance of extremes the between mean a is another.Generosity to oneindividual from to objectivity. adherence tinued con a with element ofrelativism an combines Aristotle ethics his butin Forms, Plato’s rejected He transcendent instructive. is absolutism Platonic to and ism it central to his metaphysics. But Aristotle’s reaction both to Sophistic relativ made points), hesomecertainly ofhis anticipates Seeming Truthand between distinction (asParmenides’ relative the and absolute the between contrast the ( exists What Forms. transcendent by provided absolute standards postulate to was known, well is as Plato’s response, him. represents Plato as least at ras, most notably Protago including Plato’sand Sophists, the bogeymen dramatists, the writers, Hippocratic the Herodotus, in appear recognition ofthat examples others, at one time but not at another, and so on. so and another, at not but time one at others, events are beautiful in some respects but not in others, to some people but not to other ( desires. Indeed, feelings and desires unite all human beings, Chinese and barbar and Chinese beings, human all are All and tyrants. sage kings unite ians, desires and feelings Indeed, desires. that these foreigners are the same as the insist Chinese in respect to of on their feelings and goes writer the tools, and vessels, carts, boats, encampments, houses, unity of humanity, have modern advances in cognitive science transformed the the science transformed cognitive haveof in modern humanity, advances unity slaves. and masters females, and males general, in beings of human used ) as defined by reason and as the person person the as and reason by defined as ) kath’ hauto

210 Ancient Chinese authors are as aware of cultural diversity as Greek ones, ones, Greek as diversity cultural of aware as are authors Chinese Ancient But if ancient writers sometimes maintained both cultural diversity and the e century BCE cosmological treatise, explicitly remarks on the differences differences the on remarks explicitly treatise, cosmological BCE century pros ti pros – 211 a. ) must be sharply contrasted with what onlyexists in some relation or 3

— ). Beauty itself comes in the former category. But beautiful objects or or objects beautiful But category. former the in comes itself Beauty ). But having drawn attention to their different languages, clothes, clothes, languages, different their to attention drawn having But

not precise ones, to be sure, but correct ones nevertheless. ones but correct sure, be to ones, not precise arete Nicomachean Nicomachean ) as “a dis “a as ) 2 - The correct response to a moral dilemma varies University Press, Press, University Riegel, 3 ren . Lüshi chunqiu Lüshi

— (Stanford, CA: Stanford Stanford CA: (Stanford, Buwei Lü of Annals The a term that, like the Greek the like a that, term 1

19 While he did not exactly invent 2000 / 6 / 2 ), ), , cf. John Knoblock and Jeffrey K. K. Jeffrey and Knoblock John cf. , 497 – 98 . Lüshi chunqiu Lüshi anthropos no phronesis correct correct per se per , is is , ,a ); - - - -

6 Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: of Science Towards an Anthropology fornia Press, Press, fornia Evolution and Universality groups of animals underlies folk taxonomies and even scientific ones worldwide. ones scientific even and taxonomies folk underlies animals of groups different ofthe understanding commonsense a that insisted has Atran ception, colorper on Kay Paul and BrentBerlin workby done the ofmodel the lowing was then ignored by Berlin and Kay despite their awareness of Conklin’s study. ofConklin’s awareness their despite Kay and Berlin by ignored then was Hanu the with case the notably was ethnographerresponsible, the This but noo,where madepointwasConklin, bythat desiccated. the and fresh the or example, for dead, the and living the between contrast the rather but all, at significance were presented, the terms they used sometimes did not have color as their peoplesprimary were asked to identify certain hues on the Munsell chips with which they on saturation or intensity. Second, they ignored but hues, on not thefocus facttaxonomies that color some that when fact the indigenous to attention ficient ing led Mollon to remark that it is in fact quite rare for two individuals to haveto individuals fortwo rare quite fact leditin Mollon is ing that remarkto presentationstwo were or were not identical, had different responses. That find whether asked when saw, subjects, they what describe to terms color particular deny our current cultural diversity. gatherers in the long centuries of the Pleistocene, although of course they do not Leda Cosmides, for instance,have insisted on our common as hunter- ancestry status quaestionis 5 Press, versity - Uni York: Oxford Tooby (New and Cosmides, Barkow, Culture of Generation the and Psychology ary in Culture,” of Foundations 4 for a natural classification of animals bring the issues into sharper focus. sharper into issues the bring animals of classification natural a for purposes. polemical for lated distortions that Smith identifiesin howthe studies have original beenmanipu sometimes finessethe complexity ofthe issues,and that is before wefactor in the was fundamentally flawed. fundamentally was the extensive empirical investigations that Berlin and Kay marshaled, their thesis in argued I color perception, regards as Butfirst, tions that different individuals are capable of are very variable. very are ofcapable are individuals different that tions discrimina the that reveal associates D. J.Mollon his by and studies But light. of physics the is that input the of analysis the of aspects to as well as ofvision, domain,this those that relate to the anatomy of the eye and the neurophysiology Those objections do not lead to a denial that there are cross- . . . Scott Atran, Atran, Scott John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, “The Psychological Psychological “The Cosmides, ToobyLeda John and Brent Berlin and Paul Kay, Kay, Paul and Berlin Brent Smith criticizes Scott Atran’s theses on religious experience, but his claims 1969 1995 Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: 1990 ). ), ), ? Certainly those advances have been substantial. John Tooby and 19 ). – 116 (Berkeley: University of Cali of University (Berkeley: . The Adapted Mind: Evolution Mind: Adapted The Basic Color Terms: Their Their Terms: Color Basic 7 This was for two main reasons. First, they paid insuf paid they First, reasons. main two for was This , ed. Jerome H. H. Jerome ed. , 4 But other claims for cognitive universals universals cognitive for claims other But - - 9 of Anthropology Journal Southwestern Cambridge University Press, Press, University Cambridge ence 8 Press, University Oxford (Oxford: Mind Human the of Diversity and Unity 7 . . . Cognitive Variations G. E. R. Lloyd, Lloyd, R. E. G. John Mollon, “Seeing Colour,” in Colour,” in “Seeing Mollon, John Harold C. Conklin, “Hanunoo Color Categories,” Categories,” Color “Hanunoo Conklin, C. Harold , ed. Trevor Lamb and (Cambridge: Bourriau Janine cultural cultural universals in 2007 Cognitive Variations: Reflections on the 9 Without using using Without ). that, for all 1995 5 ), ), Fol

127 11 Colour: Art and Sci and Art Colour: ( ------– 1955 6 8

50 . ): ): 339 – 44 .

- Lloyd • Response to Smith 29 ence Publications, Publications, ence Sci of Advancement the for Association American DC: 10

. Common Knowledge 30 Ernst Mayr, ed., ed., Mayr, Ernst is certainly not the case with many lower groups that of most of history higher the animals, of evolutionary lines the over main the definitiveanswer tothe question.While there is, to be sure, reasonable agreement aspects of reality is compatible with relativizing moves that allow that there is no access to claim a again, Once multidimensional. is reality too, domain, this in to objectivity are illusory. The proper conclusion, I submit, is to acknowledge that criterion to privilege. That does not mean goes that and anything that all claims using each. But there is no neutral, totally theory- more,be analyses merelyor accurate less,contrary, can there the arbitrary.On in the fossil record that provides our main evidence. main our provides that record fossil the in different results ent criteria, morphology, interfertility, and DNA analysis have been tried and yield the Chromalveolata, for instance to the “species problem.” “species to the again that underestimates the complexity of the problems. Mayr already referred science. of once Yet findings the with less ormore converges that and humans appreciationare “companions” of which animals to which that is common to all fication reportedin the ethnographic record,there isan of classi underlying systems actual commonsensethe in variety obvious the despite that, mentionedearlier Another relates to Atran’s own thesis on the classification ofanimals of reality. color. one provides of multidimensionality example the what This I call by those who continue their quest for cross- ignored be to continues itbutKay, and Berlin to available not sure, be to was, workThatsubject. onethe on another ablewewith are which communicate to exactly the same perception of color, a point masked by the apparent success with faced here, once again, with an example of fallacious dichotomies. of fallacious example an with again, once here, faced moral sensibilities, not to suppose they are incapacitated. As Smith implies, we are and the recognition of complexities. But it provides to the opportunity hone our ration of the diversity of moral systems underlines certainly the need for caution delight the meted treatment they out to Iraqi prisoners in Abu The Ghraib. explo home, American servicemen appear to have not hesitated to record with obscene the argument that they saw nothing to be ashamed of the atrocities committed by the Nazis in the concentration camps on the basis of ficult, but pass it is surely course, not Of impossible. Otherwise we legitimate. dif wouldalways is are groups or besocieties other ofpeoplein reducedbehavior the on judgment ing to judgments condoning value no that follow not does it absolutes mustismleadsIevenbe briefer. quietism, topolitical From of denial moral the 1957 (Washington, (Washington, Problem Species The ). On the second main issue on which Smith focuses, whether cultural relativ cultural whether focuses, Smith which on issue main second the On

—

which is not to say that the application of any such criterion is 10 Which groups of animals merit species status? Differ status? species merit animals of groups Which -

— 11 (September (September of the Eukaryotes,” ‘Kingdoms’ Real

and not just because of the considerable gaps .

Alastair G. B. Simpson and Andrew J. Roger, “The “The Roger, J. Andrew and Simpson B. G. Alastair cultural universals in theuniversals in domain of cultural 7 , 2004

—

the Excavata, the Rhizaria, and free, means of deciding which ): R ): 11 693

— –

just as, coming closer to 96 . Current Biology Current

—

the view I

14 . 17 ------

Symposium: Comparative Relativism

RAISING THE ANTI-, OR RELATIVISM SQUARED

Martin Holbraad

One way to read Barbara Herrnstein Smith’s subtle paper is as a robustly fair- minded valedictory on debates and controversies that raged in academia in the past few decades under the banners of “culture wars,” “science wars,” and other such military-sounding denominations. These battles concerned such notions- by-proxy as “relativism,” “positivism,” and so on — notions, that is, to which no one would own up these days without wishing to append the kind of subtlety of argument Smith herself displays here but that plenty still are happy to bandy around as terms of academic abuse. To point this out in all of its tragicomic effect, as Smith does, is of course also to take a position within these often sense- numbing position-takings. Smith’s lesson, in other words, can be read as that of showing how “taking a position” can be done more intelligently than it often has been in these disputes, by making explicit some of the chimeras from which dismally bellicose position-takings have drawn their strength. Taken together with Smith’s past oeuvre on the topic, the charge of “relativism” being chosen for this kind of intelligent treatment would bear out the idea that Smith’s intervention stakes out a position within the coordinates of the disputes it so elegantly seeks to defuse. While I have little doubt that Smith would happily recognize that a similar treatment could be proffered to the putatively “opposite” charge of, say, “positivism,” there is also no doubt where her heart would lie on such an

31 Anthropologist 1 . Common Knowledge 32 Clifford Geertz, “Anti Anti- “Anti Geertz, Clifford

86 is in this sense an anti- an sense this in is appear merely of as what negative instances all they antirelativists militant to that fact the is denominator common main called relativism, only a heterogeneous range of arguments and approaches whose distortion by way of oversimplification.There is no singleand identifiable thesis one of the forms of violence described perpetrated is that by of theindustry antirelativism be indicates, also she as could, asa blast at that are to arguments some degree past. Second, she points out that intervention Smith’s hyperbole, military antirelativist energy” are offered as a kind of rearguard action. To compound the spot- own her that infer written with a not- a with written fair- the is like, you if Hers, expressed. often so have they that thoughts unfair the “distortions” the and “improper against paraphrase” stand of the relativism-deliberate a taking in as tone conciliatory its in laudable as is paper the Smith’sin language: also reflected is commitment and intelligence all- 1990 of 1980 of “wars” the acrimony the the herself. she First, points makes two relativism. comparative of properly a promise of the part be might pluriverse ofSucharebuke. quality particular a complimentthrough it.Taking anti- the anti- the from themselves shield not to seek would papers demic aca which James)in William from Stengers’s(to borrowing borrow thinking words,“pluriverse”of other a in out.We haveplayed themselves imagine, may methodologicalon shedeadlocks which principle comments at tribal the which levelfirst of the including levels, atall differentiation oppositional in, pleasure Smith’sposition yields a meritofethos to makes an that argument of, and takes argue, would I direction, particular a in Radicalized symposium. same this in Stengers’s Isabelle from paperexpression an borrow to academia, in behaving” logical tragedy (or, as Smith would say, scandal) and, it, with a different “way of this ofout way a imagine to us allows Smith’s paper relativism,” “comparative of symposium’s this concern that with other apparently uncomfortable coupling vicinity the in read here,however, that, suggest to is want I What not. youare anti- are you either speaking, properly middle: included the of namely,that . 2 (

June June too- minded stance of the “anti- ofthe stance minded sabatedhas somewhat more in recent years In imagining further installments to Smith’s myfrom cue installments account, Itake further imagining In oftragedy dose own its was ofjoke,Geertz’s of course, fun ofthe Part 1984 simple axis. Indeed this, to my mind, profoundly fecund tension between ): ): 26 relativism,” relativism,” – 77 . dissimilar purpose. dissimilar ,that is, as a compliment a rebuke rather or,than better, as a thesis par excellence. We may conclude from these two two these Wefrom conclude excellence. may par thesis American on responses to what she calls “contemporary sites of sites “contemporary calls she what to responses on anti,” recalling Clifford Geertz’s famous essay, famous Geertz’s Clifford anti,”recalling 1 they hold dearest. So-

—

apoint from which one may refuters’ language and called relativism but to embrace embrace butto s and or

— -

vary under different conditions.” different under vary will and judgment, and interpretation perspective, of matters “depend on will these that adding “objective”to (read: absolute)alternatives oftruth, standards Smith mentions criteria such as “applicability, coherence [and] connectabilty” as goal- dependent, context- contingent, (read: nonabsolute be may that grounds on rejected or toformulate accounts of how variablemay variously to be claims truth accepted been has constructivism and pragmatism as example, for diverse, as projects of thename if it is absolute theway assume. in The whole that antirelativists point positions opponents that is only worth brandis relativist to as dispute truth that you present the relativist as claim a self- Only if you have assumed, to start with, that claims to musttruth be absolute can so- Harvard University Press, Press, University Harvard Controversy Intellectual Contemporary of in changes with reprinted of what she says here too. here says she what of published journal years ago, this in and her position be can gleaned from much her in present paper, explicitly article eponymous doneshethough an has in so charge this “unload” to notseek does Smith it?acceptwe should why so itself, are relative, thought, to claims if truth all goes then the familiar so is that claim bloc.” “relativist a like looks of to what differentiation and the may that from internal these the outside pertain to pointsbe thatspun outthere installments are indeed of further Smith’s story Refutation Charge,” Refutation 2 a good story to tell about what we mean by “relative” that all truth- the argument I have ascribed to Smith and say that what is relative about the view self- the defusing in successful would be of them both and ofarguing, ways variant two to the oftruth the claim or also to its relativity? Put more slowly: we can imagine just extend to meant ofrelativity scope logical the is relative, itself is relative are ambiguity.” of claims Smith When thatasserts the the truth claim that truth all “scope call case) this in (quite helpfully logicians whatof issue an on turns tion Butstill, consistent. being just claims are relative if the truth of are relative is claims itself that claim if intended truth the as relative truth- all that claiming in contradiction no clearly is There bullet. its bites it .

Barbara Herrnstein Smith, “Unloading the Self- the “Unloading Smith, Herrnstein Barbara called relativism is self- is relativism called The matter goes back to the relativism- The move certainly takes the sting out of the self- refutationcharge asit The stands. first wouldbe the to stick to letter of claims claims are relative is its truth and assume that, in saying so, we have Knowledge Common dependent, or, in short, relative). In her “Unloading” article, article, “Unloading” her In relative). short, or,in dependent, 1997 Belief and Resistance: Dynamics Dynamics Resistance: and Belief ). 2 Her response can perhaps be glossed as follows. If If follows. as glossed be perhaps can response Her contradictory, then the charge is itself a tautology. tautology. a itself is charge the then contradictory, (Cambridge, MA: MA: (Cambridge, how 2 . 3 2 ( 1993 consistent do we want to be here? The ques ): ): 81 contradiction. But point the very of the – 95 ; busting charge of self- 3 .

Smith, Smith,

— refutation charge

for example, because we Belief and Resistance and Belief refutation:

—

, — 77

indeed

– thatis 78 . -

Holbraad • Response to Smith 33 Common Knowledge 34 appeals to relativity are founded on good and solidly empirical grounds empirical solidly and good on founded are relativity to appeals that is suggestion the So historiographers). and ethnographers by example, for observation, (the variety” human of “observation the of course the in emerge truth, about assertions they autonomousproperties,”orbut rather as entities “taken reality and value, metaphysical as made typically not are relativity to claims occasionally in evidence in Smith’s argument. For example, she points out that moveshave often tended toward tendencythis thefirst option, and is think I do is not my point main here.) Nevertheless, I would suggest that anti- removed? would is (That want what to the antirelativist say, of though course, this self- of instance another be not so doing Would grounds, after all, would one exclude the notion of relativity from its own scope? more enticing one, at least if we are playing the “Be consistent!” game. On what of truth that as provisional and diametrically opposed, their game is pretty much the same. the much pretty is game their opposed, diametrically is a chimera. So, in short, while the agendas of the “anti- incontrovertibility, the anti- to aspires antirelativist wherethe ofassent: goal this pursue sides two the which reader’s approving nods. The difference lies mainly in the degree of modesty with of challenge and attack. The purpose in both cases, in other words, is to elicit the on depending what we take which the view that all truth- for reasons view,the ofone this On mix. the into itself relativity of notion the put could we Alternatively, you. have what or cognitive, sociological, sophical, have some independent argument about of the nature relativity, whether philo mentsrobust argu subsequent logically render to the meant is ofbuilding, a construction the that such criteria are ultimately relative. foundationalAnd this move, much as in insight wiser always the for basis a establish to imagination or representation, anti- of truth; criteria ity,or common sense to establish a basis for theutter reasonableness of absolute the antirelativists symmetry: muster arguments about like things nature, real idiom) strategy.Note their military tothe or (returning form their duplicating while arguments antirelativist contentof the oppose to is suggest, would term anti- in tendency discernible a fies reality. and value, truth, about claims sundry to is relativity of notion The genealogy. established, first their of function a as up shown be can value and reality of accounts different that and production their of conditions social instance, the observation that claims toare demonstrablytruth correlated to the Now, when put in this way, it seems obvious that the latter option is the the is option latter the that obvious way, seems it this Now, in put when If this is a fair interpretation, then Smith’s account in this respect exempli respect this in account Smith’s then interpretation, fair a is this If

—

toare they strong sure make enough pressures the to withstand founded antirelativists muster arguments about things like culture, culture, like about things muster arguments antirelativists empirically, and then applied variably (that is, relatively) relative antirelativist admits, albeit incontrovertibly, that this claims are relative is itself relative is because it varies . to mean, and its meaning is just as contingent antirelativist arguments, which, as the very very the as which, arguments, antirelativist refutation, albeit one order order one albeit refutation, ” and the “anti- antirelativist antirelativist anti” are

—

for for - - - - unsustainable is symmetry this Press, Press, Minnesota of University (Minneapolis: Smith Daniel 6 Press, University Cambridge Melanesia in Society with Problems and Women 4 Wagner’s“obviation,” to worksymposium the measure oflarge to in contributors this thanks us Eduardo Viveiros de Castro’sequivocation,” de“controlled Viveiros Eduardo concern with the dynamics of “incommensurability.” dynamics the with concern rug rug pulled from under one’s feet potential of undermining one’s own initial assumptions ofincessant comparativeto the rendering itself isin relativism productivity the intellectual impulse of eliciting assent eliciting of impulse intellectual thehabitual with is to say its is orientation that profound in root. Which conflict so radical is that its motion is peculiarly backward or, better, downward 5 Press, of Chicago University petual petual motion relativism calized radi of kind This differences. conceptual of generation creative the motorfor a transformed, as a novel conclusion. Squared in way,this then, relativity becomes what you end up with. What you took to be be the premisecannot off of your started you up,inquiry turns when relativity as counted thought you What itself. concept the haveact of to change relativity very relative,is youthe in relativity of concept the how show to out set you time every that is implies it what For contradiction no is This relative. itself is that relativity of concept a prospect: the Consider whole the go to better be (these) of its implications? not all it in say, Would relativity embrace they as hog and, endurance? relative of scale a on perishable and fragile is admitted youhave what measuring on insist Why challenge? up to nevertheless showing that they are, in one way or another, hard enough to stand why, then it, do admitted so- having or another that truth- problem: it is, if you like, half- anti- of a from basic image does suffer position content the Still, form. foundationalist their with relativizing the reconcile to way a finding . . .

Marilyn Strathern, Strathern, Marilyn Isabelle Stengers, Stengers, Isabelle The Invention of Culture of Invention The Wagner, Roy 2000 Now, as mentioned earlier, there is no prima facie reason to assume that that assume to reason facie prima no is there Now,earlier, mentioned as All I wouldAll add, in closing, is that ofpart what mode makes this of inquiry This This is what I mean by subjecting the concept of relativity to its own scope. ).

— — The Invention of Modern Science of The Modern Invention

quite the contrary: it is what logicians call a “virtuous circle.” “virtuous a call logicians what is it contrary: the quite arguably lies at the heart of notions that have become familiar to The Gender of the Gift: Problems with with Problems Gift: the of Gender The — one that operates upon itself to yield thinking that is in per is in that to upon yield itself thinking oneoperates that claims claims are inherently relative, contingent, and provisional, 4 1981 Marilyn Strathern’s “recursivity,” Marilyn 1988 ). ). measured. If the whole point is to show in one way , rev. ed. (Chicago: (Chicago: ed. rev. , —

— although to make sure it is not would involve involve notwould it is sure make to although

(Cambridge: (Cambridge: then the desired outcome must be an iterative called relativists join in the macho the of joingame in relativists called

— , trans.

the ethos of the pro- the of ethos the ogy and the Method of Controlled Equivocation,” Equivocation,” Controlled of Method the and ogy 7 8 2 versity Press, Press, versity - Uni Duke NC: (Durham, Plotnitsky Arkady and Smith ies,” in in ies,” Stud of Science Meets Science Philosophy mensurability: . . .

- Anthropol “Perspectival de Castro, Viveiros Eduardo

Barbara Herrnstein Smith, “Microdynamics of of “Microdynamics Smith, Herrnstein Barbara ( January January 8

Mathematics, Science, and Postclassical Theory Postclassical and Science, Mathematics,

— antirelativist arguments arguments antirelativist 7

as well as Smith’s own the risk of having one’s 5 2004 Stengers’s “humor,” 1997 ): ): ). 3 and its anti- its and – 22 .

— —

to the Roy Roy . If If . - - 6

Incom Tipití , ed. ed. , - -

Holbraad • Response to Smith 35 (New York: Columbia University Press, Press, University York: Columbia (New 9 . Common Knowledge 36 See Gilles Deleuze, Deleuze, See Gilles must also like having one done to you. one done to having like also must anti- of activity kind for this just metaphor own his famously,had Deleuze, next?” “Yes,whatbut a as rubbish!” message would be that if you like doing a Deleuze . Such anti-an Negotiations , trans. Martin Joughin Joughin Martin trans. , 1995 , however, itsin iteration, would indicate not so much a “No, ), ), 6. — one is that too to rude repeat here.

—

and who doesn’t? 9 But I guess the

—

then you Symposium: Comparative Relativism

Culture

A Site of Relativist Energy in the Cognitive Sciences

Andreas Roepstorff

It is easy for me to agree with Barbara Herrnstein Smith’s description of relativism as a “fantasy heresy” and to sympathize with her remarks on the consequent difficulty in getting a proper grasp on the issues at hand. I also concur in her identification of two current sources of “antirelativist energy”: namely, the claim that there are cognitive universals and the fear that relativism leads to a politically debilitating neutrality. As an anthropologist in the cognitive sciences, I face a situation somewhat different from Smith’s in the humanities, which, as she makes clear, are continually beset by accusations of relativism coming from scientists and philosophers. One of the emerging “sites of antirelativist energy” that Smith identifies is located in my own field. I would like, in this context, to explore a case — one with potentially important effects on cultural politics — in which discussion of cognitive universals is at the heart of the debate. Cultural neuroscience is a latecomer among the budding neurodisciplines. It has been defined as “an emerging research discipline, which investigates cultural variation in psychological, neural, and genomic processes as a means of articulating the bidirectional relationship of these processes and their emergent properties.”1 Since cultural neuroscience attempts to show that both cognitive

1. Joan Y. Chiao, “Cultural Neuroscience: A Once and Future Discipline,” Progress in Brain Research 178 (2009): 287 – 304, at 289. Common Knowledge 17:1 DOI 10.1215/0961754X-2010-033 © 2011 by Duke University Press

37 in the two leading review journals, journals, review leading two the in topic the on papers of publication recent the by indicated 2 Science Cognitive in Cognition,” Social and Culture “Contextualising Neuroscience Reviews Nature Approach,” aging Neuroim Transcultural A Cognition: Human of strates “Culture- Northoff, Georg and Han See Shihui series. book of volume a neuroscience key Science Trends in Cognitive and science 2008 Joan Joan Y. on Brain Function Brain on . Common Knowledge 38 Current attention to this research field is concretely concretely is field research this to attention Current ): ): 646 Chiao, ed., Chiao, – 54 ; covering and expressing their unique inner attributes.” inner unique their expressing and covering dis by and self the to attending by others from independence their maintain to seek where “individuals culture, them,” with American other hand, on and, the interdependence andharmonious in, fitting “emphasis to others, on is attending fora difference between, on where one the hand, cultures, Eastern orthe Asian ferences, the discipline is at the center of discussion of cognitive universals. of cognitive of center discussion at the is discipline the ferences, capabilities and brain functioning may vary systematically across cultural dif H. R. Markus and Shinobu Kitayama. field the in has from branched a off now- where is the “culture” in neuroscience?cultural One of the key topics of research tion: they asked the experimental subject also to relate the adjective to his or her condi extra an added cleverly and experiment paradigmatic this took colleagues of neuronal the aspects variant self, and Han Shihui search the for In culturally theoretical tool for explaining why key psychological findings can fail to replicate replicate interdependent (asselves to has proven indicated by successful highly the fail can findings independentand between made distinction The contexts. cultural psychological different in key why explaining for tool theoretical suggest that these differences in how the self is construed could make a powerful line of research been understood as indicative of a neural correlate of the self. the of correlate neural a of indicative as understood been research of line this in has other the (adjectives) to relating and self the (adjectives) to relating between activity presidentbrain in queen. The orcontrast Danish the American the as such person, ofsomefamous and ofthemselves appropriatedescriptions reada number of adjectives and areasked to evaluate whether adjectives the are adjective- an perform jects one of the most widely has been assigned for this to tasks identifying have sub correlates and of imaging, self the brain been has a key challenge for functional the very concrete and colorful brain scans. Identification and of putativestudied concepts abstract neuronalthe between translation for allows that paradigm experimental an identify to is experiment imaging brain cognitive any in lem prob central A neuroscience. to psychology cognitive from distinction this late of writing). time at the Scholar Google to paper, according of the tions (Amsterdam: Elsevier, (Amsterdam: Kai Kai Cultural Neuroscience: Cultural Influence Influence Cultural Neuroscience: Cultural 1 3 . Vogeley and Andreas Roepstorff, Roepstorff, Andreas and Vogeley 12 Some key publications in cultural neuroscience have neuroscience Some to recently tried key trans publications in cultural (November (November Sensitive Neural Sub Neural Sensitive Nature Reviews Neuro Reviews Nature , as well as in an edited edited an in as well as , 2009 2009 ): ): 511 ). 9 . 8 – (August (August 16 ascription task while in a brain scanner. Briefly, people people Briefly, scanner. brain a in while task ascription Trends ; and and ; - - vation,” vation,” - Moti and Emotion, Cognition, for Implications Self: the 3 4 the Self? An Event- An Self? the Todd and Inati, F.Caglar, Souheil “Finding Heatherton, 5 Neuroscience nitive . . . William M. Kelley, C. N. Macrae, C. L. Wyland, Selin M. Kelley, C. Selin C. N. L. Wyland, Macrae, William Hazel R. Markus and Shinobu Kitayama, “Culture and and “Culture Kitayama, and Shinobu R. Markus Hazel Chiao, Chiao, 3 The article, published in 1991 classic paper in cultural psychology by classicpaper cultural in Psychological Review Psychological Cultural Neuroscience Cultural 14 Related fMRI Study,” fMRI Related . 5 (July (July

4 98 2002 Markus and Shinobu Shinobu and Markus . , 2 224 (April 1991 (April ): ): 785 . – 94 Journal of Cog of Journal . ): ): 5 , 224 965 , argues argues , – 53 2 cita But . ------5

fMRI Study,” fMRI An Self: Chinese the of Search “In Zhu, Ying and Fan, Jin Liu, Zuxiang Zhang, Jian Zhou, Tiangang Zhang, others.” and self close for substrates neural of overlapping (e.g., whereas Asian East substrates, here) Chinese independent self depends on neural unique by mediated is Westernself independent that suggest results The whereasWestern in reliablyis MPFC byself-subjects engagedonly MPFC, ‘mother’ engages and ‘self’ representation ofboth subjects, Chinese in “that, concluded, demonstrate,”they results fMRI “ourinterdependent selves: in apparently observable brain states, the distinction between independent and repre to functional anatomy of MPFC self- use Westerners whereas mother sent exclusively the the and self, providing neuroimaging self evidence the that culture shapes both the represent to mother. Neuroimage Self- on Influence Cultural of Basis ral 6 inhabit divergentindividuals interdependentculturally selves) “that indicate to and (of independent framework the taking against warning disclaimers add fully universals nitive self- in differences cultural influential cognitive- cross- in adjective- used commonly the slightly modifying by that note to important more is it here, argument Forthe “Westerners.” or of a limited number of graduate students to or millions even billions of “Asians” approach, but it is obviously not without problems to extrapolate from the studies detail, bodythis of literature, or to discuss potential pitfalls or weaknesses in the claims across different and more or less dynamic cultural domains. cultural dynamic moreless or and different across claims these explored since have groups other from taken subjects with experiments number of self- number in the activation of MPFC, the middle prefrontal cortex neural marker. Indeed, the researchers found differences between the two groups the “Asian self,” here translated into how one would relate to one’sof mother,interdependence has a putative the whether check to extension, logical by them, ( Neuroscience Reviews Nature Cognition,” and Social Cortex Frontal The Medial Minds: 7 8

. January January . . Zhu et al., “Neural Basis of Cultural Influence,” Influence,” of Cultural Basis “Neural al., et Zhu Ying Ying David M. M. David To the authors, these findings suggestedthat “Chineseindividuals useMPFC This symposium is not the proper context in which to review, in any any in review, to which in context proper the not is symposium This Zhu, Li Zhang, Jin Fan, and Shihui Han, “Neu Han, Shihui and Fan, Jin Zhang, Li Zhu, 2006 6 cultural settings, a body of literature is emerging, published in the most most the published in is emerging, a of body literature settings, cultural Running this experiment on Chinese and Western students allowed allowed students Western and Chinese on experiment this Running 34 Amodio and Chris D. Frith, “Meeting of “Meeting Frith, D. Chris and Amodio Science in China, Series C: Life Sciences C: in China,Science Series ): ): . 3 89 (February (February – other discrimination studies. discrimination other 96 — . to the level of brain science. Many authors in this field care field this in authors Many science. ofbrain level the to scienceand brain- 7 2007 . 4 (April 2006 (April ): ): representation.” The authors were thus able to anchor, relations other 1310 Representation,” Representation,” – 16 ): ): . See also also See . 268 – 77 imaging journals, which appears to shift which appears journals, to shift imaging 1315 .

49 — Li Li . 1 7 . - a key issue in the discussion of cog discussion the in issue key a Self,” Self,” the of Representations Neural on Influences Cultural “Dynamic al., et Saito, Daisuke YokoMano, Li, Zhang 9 on Self- on Belief Religious of Consequences “Neural Ma, Yina and Ge, Jianqiao Xhu, Ying Gu, Xiaosi Mao, Lihua Han, Mapping Brain Basis “Neural of Views Self,” al., et and Collectivistic of Saito, Individualistic Daisuke Mano, Yoko Li, Zhang (March (March 1 – . ascription task and running it running and task ascription 11 Joan Y. Chiao, Tokiko Harada, Hidetsugu Komeda, Komeda, Hidetsugu Harada, Tokiko Y.Chiao, Joan ; Joan Y. Chiao, Tokiko Harada, Hidetsugu Komeda, Komeda, Hidetsugu Harada, Tokiko Chiao, Y. Joan ; Neuroscience of Cognitive Journal 2008 Referential Processing,” Processing,” Referential

— 8 A number of follow- ): ):

the region found in a

1 30 – 15 . 9 (September (September . 9 judgments. 2009 Neuroscience Social 22 up ), ), - - - . 2813 1

( January January – 20 ; Shihui Shihui ; Human Human 2010 3 . ): ): 1 Roepstorff • Response to Smith 39 Kinds,” in in Kinds,” Social Cognition,” Cognition,” Social and Culture “Contextualizing Roepstorff, and Vogeley Press, University Oxford (Oxford: Premack James Ann and Premack, David Sperber, Dan 11 10 . . Common Knowledge 40 Markus and Kitayama, “Culture and the Self,” the and “Culture Kitayama, and Markus Ian Hacking, “The Looping Effect of Human Human of Effect Looping “The Hacking, Ian Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate Multidisciplinary A Cognition: Causal in Western in countries. nature are some very strong assumptions about the nature of human culture. human of nature the about assumptions strong very some are nature human by produced cultures the of discussion this Underlying with. begin to “cultures with independent and interdependent selves” that prompted the analysis first anreading attempt tothe in locate brain, culture it was a classification into on seem may selves cultural on literature of body emerging the Although are. “we” who of understanding an into back feeds universals cognitive and brain, generalize? experiments iorhow and of muchothers, contextmatter? does How welldo brain- and in the in environment the behav traits ways to adaptcertain in characteristic we as humans responsive and capable of ongoing modification? Do we reactand the potentials of and limits to the plasticity of mind and brain. To examine to what be may extenttask that of are aspect key One explanation. and textualization concern. anthropological) and philosophical, of scientific, as pendent versus interdependent), appears to be a matter also of political (as much inde Asian, idea versus (Western of abstract a “culture” highly instrumentalizes incomparably different worlds.” different incomparably looping effect of classifications. of effect looping tive, it is very difficult not to seeas wellthe potential for whatIan Hacking calls a behaviorism that, I take it, behaviorismI some take that, of Smith’s work own embodies. That approach life of human unfolding the in dynamics key aboutabout be buttoseemnot understanding death also only stakes the relativism, versionofcognitive particular however, this in intuition; may, to establish been working alater provenbe in time, isagreatwrong. This has scientist, a as one, what all that idea the of mortality, of horror a is tivism domain.” “brain the to relation by its reconfigured and transformed being is identity of notion the rather states; brain to identity Ultimately, current discussions ofeffects on cultural the brain may not “reduce” a world where, so far, world so a where, These experimental results may therefore also become part of identity politics in offor people, come classifications asdifferences to seem anchoredin states. brain 511 – 16 Another equally important task is to examine how is totask important equally on examine Another discourse the mind, Yetandarearein available readily need novel these offindings propercon In In this very brief analysis, I have been much inspired by a variety of literary rela of horror the of base the at that suggests Smith Herrnstein Barbara . 1995 ), ), 354 – 12 90 94 Accordingly, this version of cognitive relativism, which which Accordingly,version relativism, of cognitive this percent ofbrain- ; see also also see ; 248 , ed. ed. , . 11 10 Brains may become both models of and models However, from an anthropological perspec anthropological an However, from University Press Press University Aarhus (Aarhus: Kull Kalevi and Bubandt, Roepstorff, Identity and Cosmology of Practices Nature: Imagining in Nature,” of Plurality the and Culture of Critique The 13 12 . .

Andreas Roepstorff and Nils Buband, “Introduction: “Introduction: Buband, Nils and Roepstorff Andreas Chiao, “Dynamic Cultural Influences,” Influences,” Cultural “Dynamic Chiao, imaging experiments are being done being are experiments imaging 2003 ), ), 9 – 30 . 288 scanning scanning . , ed. ed. , 13 - - - - -

contextualization and explanation. and contextualization religion and religion and the cognitive sciences. cognitive the and religion of nexus the of discussion recent her in and here, presented as relativism, on theposition taken (or thetext). written approach I see this Smith’s in both work much withoutabout caring motives the ofandlives inner persons the who have permits discussion of a position (or a text) on the basis of what it potentially does, 14 straight unfold facts and practices, ideas, how tracking for ful to the work of the Mind and Life Institute Life and Mind the workof the to CT: Yale University Press, Press, CT: Yale University Haven, (New Religion and Science of Nexus the at Cognition Neuroscience Affective and Cognitive Social Prayer,” Personal in Cognition Social of Areas Recruit Participants Religious “Highly Roepstorff, Andreas and Stødkilde- Hans Schjoedt, Letters Neuroscience Nuns,” Carmelite in Experience Mystical a of Correlates 15 working with pigeons in a famous Harvard lab many years ago. years many lab Harvard famous a in pigeons with working andlife.org. 199 . . – Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Smith, Herrnstein Barbara Mario Beauregard and Vincent Paquette, “Neural “Neural Paquette, Vincent and Beauregard Mario 2 07 . For the Mind and Life Institute, see www.mind see Institute, Life and Mind the For . — and it may be one very unpredictable outcome of a summer spent summer a of outcome unpredictable very one be may it and — 405 from identification of neural correlates of religious experiences experiences religious of correlates neural of identification from . 3 (September 2006 (September Jørgensen, Armin W. Geertz, W. Geertz, Armin Jørgensen, 2010 Natural Reflections ). 4 ): ): . 2 186

15 ( 14 June June Smith’s approach appears to be highly use highly be to Smith’s appears approach The kinds of interchange scienceThe between kinds – 90 : Human Human : 2009 ; Uffe Uffe ;

— ): ):

are very much in need of careful careful of need in much very are opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/ Rocks,” and Lives 16 - - n o i g i l e r . Barbara Herrnstein Herrnstein Barbara

— - s e v i l

for setting the record record the setting for - d n a 16 e n u J d e s s e c c a ( / s k c o r New York Times York New Smith, “Science and Religion: Religion: and “Science Smith, 2 010 , January January , / 01 - / 28 25 , - e c n e i c s / 2010 25 ). , 2010 d n a , Roepstorff • Response to Smith 41 Symposium: Comparative Relativism

Chinese Comparisons and Questionable Acts

Barbara Herrnstein Smith

Andreas Roepstorff ’s description of cultural neuroscience, taken together with Geoffrey Lloyd’s coincidentally related comment here, reminded me of a visit I made to China in 1983 with a group of American scholars of comparative literature. Since the discipline of comparative literature as such did not exist at the time in Chinese universities, I was repeatedly asked by the Chinese scholars we met to explain the sort of research we did. I usually began by saying something like, “Well, someone who specializes in English and Chinese literature might compare the themes or plots of Elizabethan drama and Peking opera.” The response I almost invariably received was, “And which is better?” I was, of course, amused but also puzzled by this. Were these scholars, I wondered, attempting — teasingly or otherwise — to elicit a betrayal of my presumed Western snobbery? Or did their experience of the recently ended Cultural Revolution make them sensitive about the status of traditional Chinese culture? Or perhaps the only Chinese term available to translate comparative involved ideas of ranking or preference, so that, for my interlocutors, comparing things just meant seeing or saying which was better. I never arrived at a satisfactory resolution to my puzzlement, either from my respectfully posed but language- and custom-tangled questions at the time or from subsequent conversations, some of them rather awkward, with the

42 the particular the particular operatingnotthesestudies in (or not only) to by describe persons distinguished these kinds lead one to suspect that the terms “Asian/s” and “Western/ers” are at issue, then one must wonder what explains the exclusion, as it appears, of black black of subjects. pool of the from experimental Americans appears, it as exclusion, the explains what wonder must one then issue, at middle- Norwegian fishermen, Spanish flamencodancers, and the college- different obviously rather the if And, “Westerners”? to students” [sic] American “White from and “Asians” to “Chinese” from comment without proper, itmovebe to onewonders, Can conclusions. and questions frame to ers features of nomenclature those studies is shifting the casually used by research assumed in someor of the studies describeddrawn by Roepstorff. Among other troubling contrasts the to regard with apt especially appear cautions Lloyd’s resilient, even among practitioners of the empirical disciplines themselves. Thus disciplines. related empirical and psychology, ethnography, have beendualisms made obsolete dichoto of familiar genetics, research in by a century standard to present other and relativity,these Lloyd that observes interactivity cultural and of mies universality inevitable and complexity intrinsic such that challenge the Noting involved. presumably variables multiple the among interactions ongoing the including activities, cognitive such of complexity the stresses he colorperception, in humans among universality counterclaimed or variability of cultural/linguistic studies discussing vein, same the In themselves. different the significantly views theseof matters among the Greek philosophers also and difference cultural to responses Greek ancient and Chinese ancient in as a classicist and comparatist. as fromdistinct simple contrast or binarism of any kind play of difference and sameness in and cultures cognition. Indeed, complexity wariness. some with approached technologically and otherwise inventive studies described by Roepstorff must be tural comparison to which Lloyd alerts us; and, accordingly, they suggest why the and methodological these old perplexities are relevant here. For they illustrate the vividly conceptual Chinese- and Diversity of the Human Mind Human the of Diversity and Press, Press, University Oxford York: (New Culture and Science Chinese and Greek on Perspectives Philosophical Reflections: Modern Press, University York: Cambridge 1 versity Press, Press, versity . See, e.g., G. E. R. Lloyd, Lloyd, R. e.g., E. G. . See, 2004 Traditional dichotomies and related dualisms can, however, can, Traditionalextremely be related and dichotomies dualisms Here as elsewhere work, his in Lloyd is attentiveespecially to the complex class Americans are classjudged Americans in regardinsignificant the totraits cognitive ); ); American scholars in our group. In their very inevitability, however, inevitability, very their In group. our in scholars American 2007 Cognitive Variations: Reflections on the Unity Unity the on Reflections Variations: Cognitive cultures ). — they inhabit but (or to some extent also) as biological- as also) extent some to (or but inhabit they Demystifying Mentalities Demystifying and, and, I would add, ethical sometimes (New York: Oxford Uni Oxford York: (New 1990 1 Thus he notes similarities as well as differences differences as well as he notesThus similarities );

Ancient Worlds, Worlds, Ancient (New (New -

Conflations and exclusions of of exclusions and Conflations

— — is his signature theme hazards of hazards intercul age children of cultures of, say, racial racial

— - - -

Smith • Final Comments 43 tion,” tion,” Motiva and Emotion, Cognition, for Implications Self: 3 studies. such on based kinds Press, Free York: Why . . . and Differently Think Westerners and Asians 2 4 5 H. C. Triandis and others that are comparably problema comparably are that others and H. Triandis C. . Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama, “Culture and the and the “Culture Kitayama, and Shinobu . Markus Hazel . See Richard E. Nisbett, Nisbett, E. Richard . See . The assumption is based largely on earlier studies by by studies earlier on largely based is assumption The . . Markus and Kitayama, “Culture and the Self,” the and “Culture Kitayama, and . Markus Common Knowledge 44 Psychological Review Psychological in the tradition of cross- of tradition the in introductory statement: introductory ing recent neuroscience studies cited by Roepstorff another to the self may be unnecessarily restricted. unnecessarily be may self the to another or way one in linked are that phenomena those of understanding gists’ psycholo . . . self[,] the to approach monocultural this of result a As individual as an independent, self- populations, Markus and Kitayama write: Kitayama and Markus populations, local particular on findings from overgeneralize to tendency psychologists’ on commenting Thus, Relativism.” of Chimera “The in describe I that pologists self- disciplinary the to similar corrective intention directed at the provincialism of much psychological research, Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama. cultural study that Roepstorff cites, “Culture and the Self,” by psychologists better?”). is (“And which invidious potentially at least contexts, some in and, dubious methodologically and conceptually both problematic, appear people) and views of “Asians” the self of or being “collectivist” versus “individualistic” in regard to traits other cognitive “independent” versus “interdependent” having contrasting example, for (as, “Westerners” putatively the regarding psychologists categories. To the extent such suspicions are warranted, claims made by cultural differences among cultures. differences in reflected isclearly influence their that and suggested previously than may self the and be others even more between powerful relationship the of and others, of self, the of construals that suggest we article, this In self.” the “view people which assume they Their central aim, however, is to establish the psychological significance of what view particular one on based is nature human about know currently psychologists what of [M]ost 2003 ), for extended contrasts of these these of contrasts extended for ), A number of the problems noted here are evident a in foundational cross- Some basic difficulties of conceptualization in the article the in conceptualization of difficulties basic Some

9 The Geography of Thought: How How Thought: of Geography The 8 . 2

( 1991

from the beginning are two specific, sharply contrasted ways in ways contrasted sharply specific, two are beginning the from ): ): 224 – 53 6 cultural research that it continues to generate, includ generate, to itcontinues that research cultural In particular, we compare independent an particular, In 2 24 (New (New 5 . — disciplining efforts of the historians and anthro and historians the of efforts disciplining - the so- the contained, autonomous entity. . . .

Psychology Psychology Cohen, Dov and Kitayama Shinobu in Reasoning,” and Categorization, “Culture, Hirschfeld, see Douglas Medin, L. Sara J. Unsworth, and Lawrence tic. differences. But that is the reverse of the claim made in in made claim the of reverse the is that But differences. versa vice or tion psychologists cultural 6 (“construals of the self”) is said to be “ is said self”) of the (“construals trait cognitive a passage, this In ambiguous. essentially is . The direction of the causality or influence claimed by by claimed influence or causality the of direction The . For discussion of the lineage and some of the problems, problems, the of some and lineage the of discussion For called Western view of the the of view Western called 3 Its authors’ stated objectives suggest a suggest objectives stated authors’ Its (New York: Guilford, York: Guilford, (New 4 —

— varies from one study to another or or another to study one from varies — can can be seen in the authors’ - cogni to culture from whether 2007 -

Handbook of Cultural Cultural of Handbook — ), ), reflected in reflected 615 and, thereby, and, – 44 . ” cultural cultural ” 2 - - a (and traits by influenced as differ cognitive activities) brain that correlated Roepstorff by cited studies other ed., ed., tion tion commonly commonly understood. is term the as relativism” “cultural of site a neuroscience cultural of field new the make would course, of kind, ter cultures. Latin- cultures, can Afri of characteristic also is it But cultures. Asian other in as well as culture Japanese in exemplified is view interdependent The cultures. segment of American culture, as well as in many Western European sizable some in exemplified clearly most is view independent view.The an view, different very other, one with self the of view of culture on cognition (or vice versa). (or vice cognition on of culture self of the “views reveal theirabout what studies tosay exactly “Western” difficult “Asian” versus increasingly itbecomes morefundamental, and thornier become identify they issues the as and claims their into deeplymore cut caveats authors’ the as But, tences.Theacknowledgment of problemssuch such. as admirable of is, course, sen more several for way this in continues paragraph final the forth: so And questionnaires. and stimuli ing and equat . is issue of that . persistent translation . differences. Another cultural of assessment the on centers issue thorny Another dependent. inter or independent either as classified be easily cannot that others self] we discuss as similar and . . . there may be views of [of the theviews self those andamong distinctions important be well may [T]here background.” ethnic tobe most middle- of characteristic White, prove may . . . self the of view American prototypical The . . . tendencies general [only]as regarded be must . . . make we that distinctions “The article: lengthy the of course the over up and pile immediately added are qualifications further of “views different the self sharply presumptively whose groups the of specificity the indicating in scrupulous be to seek Kitayama and Markus clear, makes statement this of part latter the As of further qualifications appears at the conclusion of the article: the of conclusion the at appears qualifications of further consider the sizeable implications of that possibility for their research. A cascade do not authors but the it be, may Indeed capitalism.” industrial of late, product a may also be restricted further to a pointparticular in history. It may be primarily reflection of Cultural Neuroscience: Cultural Influence onBrainFunc Influence Cultural Neuroscience: Cultural [Amsterdam: Elsevier,[Amsterdam: 7

— cultural difference (see, e.g., J. Y. Chiao, Y.J. Chiao, e.g., (see, difference cultural

” and what, if anything, they demonstrateabout influence they the anything, if what, ”and American cultures, and southern many European cultures, American 8 2009 A footnote here adds: “The prototypical American view view American prototypical “The adds: here footnote A ]). Only claims of the lat the of claims Only ]). 9 ” concern caveats them. Indeed, and additional — or as as or classmen a Western with European - - 7 9 8 . Markus and Kitayama, “Culture and the Self,” the and “Culture Kitayama, and . Markus . Markus and Kitayama, “Culture and the Self,” the and “Culture Kitayama, and . Markus . Markus and Kitayama, “Culture and the Self,” the and “Culture Kitayama, and . Markus interdependent - - - 224 225 247 . . .

Smith • Final Comments 45 10 emphasis added. emphasis

. Markus and Kitayama, “Culture and the Self,” Self,” the and “Culture Kitayama, and Markus . Common Knowledge 46 have been evident in my work from the beginning, the from work my in evident been have care to spell out. Most of the supposedly radicalizing moves that Holbraad taken urges have I that relativism of definitions under least at along, all right it had enough, especially bya challengerso artful Holbraad.as Martin But the hooters way- “all- “extreme,”“radical,” for hooted being of lifetime professional a After directed. and motivated moment, however,the fieldbe otherwise to the seems in bit good aof research contemporary relativistcultural energy. Perhaps it will, in time, become such. At behavior. human in crucial be to said in order to in of human nature. And, in each case, that affirmation is offeredinthe face of,and affirmation ofthe existence of generalpsychological principlesand/or universals divergent humans “inhabit incomparably different worlds” is attached to a strong culturally ideathat attributed vaguely the of rejection case, each In relativism.” the identifies rejected with who idea“cultural explicitly Atran, byScott discuss I passage a in recall, we appears, also idea that just of rejection and to Allusion he cites, appears to have become something of a ritual in research. cross-cultural rather extravagant idea, a disavowal repeated, as Roepstorff notes, in other studies ductivity in it overmuch. Similarly, while I would, Holbraad,like the intellectual stress available activity, I would not myself forego other intellectual pursuits to indulge itself. And, while reveling in semantic and conceptual proliferation is certainly an relative ofterm needs the to toldbe meaning the that century over half past the theory otherwise with my tastes or purposes. No one engaged by literary and linguistic orwould at be odds perspective my from radical noteither are especially urges rably different worlds rably different inhabit that incompa divergent individuals culturally of some anthropologists conclusion or to the principles psychological various of generality of lack the over despair ate immedi to not “should lead write, they contexts,” cultural different in findings interestpoint of here. to replicatecertain final a failure make “A Kitayama and have been no less interested in exploring the rhetorical, psychological, and social- and psychological, rhetorical, the exploring in interested less no been have down” relativism, it is bracing to be charged with not being relativistic relativistic being not with charged be to bracing is it relativism, down” Roepstorff is eager to represent cognitive neuroscience cultural as a site of Evidently recognizing the possibility of such a skeptical reaction, Markus of Markus reaction, suchaskeptical possibility the Evidentlyrecognizing is itself include relative can scopeorof the of that assertion relativity an of intellectual controversy (the point is central to to central (the is point controversy of intellectual discount, evidence of insignificantvariability cultural a cognitivetrait .” 10 The otherwise gratuitous- otherwise The 247 , radically contingent.”radically of Value,” Value,” of 11 . See, e.g., “Contingencies Smith, Herrnstein Barbara Critical Inquiry seeming disavowal of this latter latter this of disavowal seeming 11 and the other moves he

10 . 1 Belief and Resistance and Belief ( 1983 ): ): 1 – 35 : “All value is the- pro ), I - - - braad delivers here a litter of baby chimeras. of baby litter here a delivers braad Thus himself duplicating the definitive ploy theof antirelativists of yore, Hol of improper a crucially paraphrase of the text he cites plus a good bit air. of thin sa[id]” what was attributed them, Holbraad generates assertionthis by Smith out “actually had “taken” thus authors the that ascertaining however,in Deleuze, would- his to there moves from and relative are itself is relative ..,” claims soforth) and truth all that claim of the self- of charge familiar the of form the of duplication mirror alleged my of demonstration apparent his with steam up picks attempt The turn. fruitful more a arguments my give to ingly accord seeks philosophers, venerable of overcoming Deleuze’screative on here efforts his modeling saying.” Holbraad,been evidently had I all say actually to had author the because child, own his be to it “for adds, Deleuze important,” really yetmonstrous.” was “It offspring, own his would be that child a him ing sophical author” an as efforts “taking rudely philo early own his seeing of and Hegel) and Kant mentions (he philosophy of history the with impatience youthful ofhis writes Deleuze Gilles comment, that kind from my stated views. stated my from kind that of empiricist foundationalism quiteabit abeefy of inventive glossingto extract Butto remark a likelysource is not andgrounding, it ultimate an to takes claim commonlyhistorians from arise their experiences the field in the inarchives.or and grounds.” empirical ofI views do anthropologists that the relativistic observe claim, as he supposes, “that appeals to relativity are founded on good and solidly “arguments.” and For donotI mark. example, “positions” ofthe wide quite generally are guesses his it is, As presumptive my of many so at guess to needed have Smith, but, had he looked more carefully at the texts he did consult, he would not ventures. more irenic in, happiness found and pursued, also have I differentiation”(though he interprets it, my in case, as “macho” combativeness), “oppositional of pleasures the as celebrates he what of partaken certainly have institutional operations and effects of such controversies. such of effects and operations institutional lectualControversy 12 emerges.” knowledge all that belief and skepticism of clash and sity Press, Press, sity . See, e.g., Smith, . e.g., See, Smith, In the passage from from passage the In H. B. of works complete the with familiar be to obliged not is Holbraad 1997 ), ), 122 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer Harvard MA: (Cambridge, Belief and Resistance: Dynamics of Intel Dynamics Resistance: and Belief – 23 : “It is out of the endless dance dance endless the of out is “It : Negotiations refutation (“When Smith asserts that the truth truth the that asserts Smith (“When refutation be be überrelativist that Holbraad evokes at the end of his his of end the at evokes Holbraad that - -

(to use Holbraad’s term) “and giv endgame. Less diligent than than diligent Less endgame. 12 Moreover, while I Moreover,while - - - -

Smith • Final Comments 47 Symposium: Comparative Relativism

Comparison as a matter of concern

Isabelle Stengers

We are all comparativists, and so probably are all animals. Comparison is an important part of any animal’s equipment for dealing with its respective world. This symposium, however, is not about comparison as a matter of fact (I am using Bruno Latour’s terminology here) but as a matter of concern. But comparison may be a matter for many kinds of concern. The concern that gathers around those of us who are haunted by the polemical opposition of relativism and universalism demands to be situated in order to avoid the trap of generality. More precisely, it may demand that those it gathers around speak about the situation that made it a matter of effective concern. Do we impose comparison or are we authorized to compare by the subjects we address? I will not attempt to deal with this question as if from the outside — as if it were an epistemological or critical problem. To take it as such would be to enter, from the very beginning, into a polemical confrontation with those practices for which this question is already a matter of crucial concern: practices that in one way or another present themselves as inheritors of the Greek claim that to understand is to identify a logos. Both logos and the Latin ratio are an etymological source for terms such as reason and account but also proportion, which signifies an operation of comparison. The French word rapport has inherited this con- stellation of meanings, while its usual translation, “relation,” has lost it. Every-

48 measurability and reality identify to decision methodological the embody they that idea the at arrive Wedirectly measurement. ofthen would art the of extension an with experimental sciences. The critical temptation could with be toassociated identify these claims sciencesthe with start will it so, if and, here begin may quarrel or the yardstick for length. But where to go from unproblematicthis point? The as forscales devices andsuch inventing weight measuring measurements defining of point very the is comparison because unproblematic, is lengths or weights as To such comparison. authorizes magnitudes compare that rapport a and ing point, avoiding the too easy connection between relation and relativism. relevant very a at readers down slow will they welcomesince quite are English in term the of senses idiomatic the to due effects disturbing “rapport.” The as connect comparison text will the creation/discovery with of what describe I will may be described thing as related, “rapports.” entertains but not everything My or or what can be measured, and measurements as related to the the to related as measurements and measured, be can what tion between measurements as usual, acting like a unilateral sieve, retaining only distinc the to be: would answer the And attention?” due pay “dothey words, unilat already, erally,The is question rather: defined as significant. have Whitehead’s“Towhat,” in they what only is retain they what that follow not does it but first at observable is sight. It than may more well be that those nature scientists’ in attention like functions a sieve discover or filter, they that “believing” only tists less.” with content be not will But sight. we at first observed is which that than believe,”to nature in found be dueby more attention,“that he wrote, can instinctive attitude towards perceptual knowledge.” “We are instinctively willing “ourimmediate ofsciencebut also claims the not just attack theories such that Nature comparison. quantitative to themselves lend address they that matters them as the production of situations that authorize them to claim that the subject of achievements the proper sciences, to characterizing experimental singularity the on insist to want first I so, do to order In question. into call to wish I that sciences a model to experimental be approached ment, by making other sciences, scienceif align is to possible be example. It it is their this must extend obey and that claim will They “objective” justification. a sciences as experimental, polit tothe and ethical entails comparison appeal will suchchallenges when practitionersconfronting the Often challenges. ical me, concern actually that cases matize imposed. unilaterally then and presupposed first have they logos We know the mathematical origin of the classic classic ofthe origin mathematical Wethe know - scien experimental about claim “relativist” any with content be to refuse I In Whiteheadian. a me as way, the by approach, marks This dra to but sciences these defend to order in not move, this resist to intend I , Whitehead remarked, in opposition ofremarked, in theories , knowledge,Whitehead to skeptical . A creation of this kind has the character of an event rather than of a of than rather event an of character the has kind this of creation A .

—

thatis, at “relativist” the thesisthat sciences discover only what logos, linking understand creation The Concept of of a rapport ------

Stengers • Comparison as a Matter of Concern 49 1 trans. trans. nesota Press, Press, nesota . Common Knowledge 50 See Isabelle Stengers, Stengers, Isabelle See Daniel W. Smith (Minneapolis: University of Min University W. (Minneapolis: Daniel Smith 2000 distinction betweendistinction sets of professional concerns the occasioned it that extent an such to matters It motion. frictionless ideally motion,rapport question the matters as the refersof for friction instance, to an be secondary differences can come to matter a good deal. In the case of Galilean passes the specificity theof rapport. “More”also that means whatmay appear to find theinitially moreobvious,isthan in nature due attentionthey pay encom matters is the singularity of what is retained by the filter.When experimenters do The created rapport itself specifies. actmeasurements as asieve orfilter, butwhat Each such creation is event, an the production of a new way to measure that the achievement, for the creation of a rapport authorizing the definition ofan object. surement alone. In their case, objectivity is not the name for a method but for an avalanche). an to (as opposed manner frictionless ideally an in move horse)a and bodies,Galilean which have no internal source of motion (as opposed to a car or call may we what of that motion, of kind specific quite a identifies It general. obviously not relevant to qualities, all nor is it relevant to space- measurement. port:a rapport that that authorizeswhat claiming is measured lends itself to the rap of kind unusual very a create to is which the of achievement device first the device, experimental planeenabled first to do plane the isso. Theinclined him of velocity of a body at determinate moments of its fall, it is because the inclined degrees varying the compare able to was Galileo If life. human a of course the terms ofdegrees; varying fordegrees instance, varying of andcharity sin during tion for modern science. For medieval anythinkers, quality could be redefinedin of velocity. degrees decreasing and of increasing terms in bodies the motion of heavy couldcharacterize before Galileo was necessary definition conceptual new This intensity. of degrees decreasing or increasing of terms in century, when firstthinkers definedqualities not in opposition to eachother, but fourteenth the in happened possible sciences modern the made that event tual the Forrelevance assessment. of quantitative understanding the Duhem, concep of opposites terms qualitative in (warmnature andcold, for instance) precluded of Aristotle’sunderstanding helpthat emphasized here. us can Duhem Duhem concerned. is achievement experimental an when of relevance meaning particular rather the on insist to is to” measurement “lendthemselves may phenomena that discovery the about speak to But concern. crucial of matter of “relevance” terms a as in characterized It be enterprise. methodologicalmay ). Experimental sciences are not objective because they would rely on mea However, what pointed Duhem out was a notnecessary, condi a sufficient, Pierre conditions. general more needed certainly achievement an Such The Science Invention of Modern 1 But such a rapport is never a general one. The inclined plane is is plane inclined one. The general never a is rapport a But such - ,

—

those of the physicists, from time motiontime in - - - - - ones made possible by the inclined plane or by the use of chemical reactions to reactions of chemical use orthe planeby onesinclined made possible the by “rapport,”the ofa creation as such the to relative are depends, sciences mental experi the to particular realism the which upon claims, such that underscore to comparisons.It intois important tools for making successfully couldbeturned they did not impose, that pertained to the phenomena studied, and that therefore ever since: they should be able to claim that they benefit fromscientists statesexperimental ofthat affairs characterizes that concern of matter the is on touched and relational. specific both is that agency an elements with The tables published by Torbern Bergman between between Torbern by published tables Bergman The stronger for theaffinity third woulddisplace the otherfrom such an association. “rapport” to aone third with which both could be associated; the one with the by iron.”by than cadmium Two chemical elements were thus compared their in which means that “the ofacid particles the aqua are morefortis attracted strongly iron,” the abandons and it, putinto is which cadmium the dissolves fortis aqua this enterprise had been Newton’s reasoning in the had the Newton’sbeen in enterprise reasoning this col by it, in the order determined by their mutual displacements. point The of starting organized were tables Such rapports. or headed umns, by an element, followed by all the elements affinities of liable to combine with tables exhaustive ingly cally, to the labor of those eighteenth- chemistry. to mustplaychemist learn along. There isno equivalentplane in ofinclined an the which with transformations correlated into entering ofcapable as is, that agents; as bodies addressing requires chemistry experimental in attention due Paying qualities. ofgiven degrees ordecreasing increasing about the questions donot respondto motion,they inertial like quality, referenceof some uniform to common be the submitted cannot Since they are notthat in any way Galilean. matter subject their of constitutive as friction who of engineers, andthose the deal with mechanics, “rational” from derived tools with working still are who Hawking, to Galileo between two elements in relation to an unchanged third unchanged an to relation elementsin two between combination, they also conceive the combination event as effecting a comparison ideaof the followfrom tables the Butwhile dissociating. and associating while formations; it deals with combinations of elements that conserve some identity non- a enact tables such velocity, of measurements Galileo’s Like agents. chemical characterizing of forty- tables together of results the of thousands twin chemical in reactions organized The point I wish to emphasize with the two rather different cases I have I cases different rather two the with emphasize to wish I point The I will limit myself here myself to eighteenth- limit I will bodies Hereexample. with another we is deal chemistry Measurementin The affinity tables are now outmoded, but chemistry is still full of tables of full still is chemistry but are tablesnow outmoded, affinity The nine columns each, one for reactions in solution, one for dry reactions. dry one for solution, in reactions one for each, columns nine Aristotelian definition. Chemistry is not a science of trans of science a not is Chemistry definition. Aristotelian — no machine works without friction. friction. without works no machine century chemists whocentury composed increas century chemistry and, moreand, specifi chemistry century Opticks 1775 and and

— : “a solution of in iron

that is, they endow they is, that 1783 would bring - - - - -

Stengers • Comparison as a Matter of Concern 51 Common Knowledge 52 Underliningevent the definition. objective the from follow to appears then practice experimental the definition of a state Asof such, affairs. the event of itscreation may be forgotten: order affinities.The very specificity ofthis rapport is to authorize the “objective” while paradigm E In about case of para tells nothing while paradigm them success, in particular. paradigm B promises the possibility of new kinds of reliable experimental results, for them. matter of which consequences sion the for a deci reasons work words, to they other activate produce and In paradigms. research evaluate and compare to them enable may whatever develop to work tion of the diverging consequences of both paradigms. So the scientists involved tion of a new as paradigm dominated by by the explora discrimination, critical proposi the following period the characterizes indeed Kuhn created. be cannot one the other. against But does claim his not mean that the reasons for deciding favorof would reliablydecide in that test single aon agree can paradigms rival paradigms. of rival comparison and evaluation the in engaging neglected, which is (yet again) the specificmatter of concern shared by scientists They understood an important feature of his account that social constructionists of his book? I would argue that the physicists who agreed werewith Kuhn right. Why moreover was himself Kuhn so unhappy with the antirealist interpretation revolutions? paradigmatic of description his with agree time his in physicists many so did interpretation, of frames accepted socially upon dependent gent, are questionable. Why, was describing if Kuhn of the history science as contin of Kuhn, however, and the identification ofhis positionas antirealist and con interpre relativist social tive frame on transmitted what they study first and have socially a thus no the special impose is access to reality. This use Kuhn scientists that shown having thinkers, structionist, critical many for result, a As interpretation. of frames constructed socially of succession a as progress, and reason of tale a beenofwidely thoughtscience, longto reevaluatehistory the understoodto be “paradigm.” a Kuhn Thomas and program” “research a named Lakatos Imre “rapport,”which new a of quences conse the of exploration situated always and demanding the through extends only reality” “Experimental claims. such of legitimacy the of loss the means also definition objective experimental ofan extension general any that know to It issufficient claims. realist does not “deconstructing” our require universality a consequence, As equation the sciences experimental resisting identifying with the experimental rapport must satisfy because of this concern are “universal.” relative to a very unusual concern. Neither the concern nor the exacting demands the abstract universal/relative dilemma is concerned. Experimental objectivity is Typically, they will imagine new experimental situations, for which the new that way no is there that means incommensurability about claim Kuhn’s has paradigms rival between Kuhn’sof incommensurability claim famous

—

the creation the of a rapport

—

ishowever important when ------contrasted standpoints. In other words, the blind men would have lent themselves acoherent outright account contradictionscould that into interesting turn very of possibility the explore to elephant the around move next would they ments; assess contradictory first their make men blind the when endnot would story the such, been had it If them. to concern crucial of matter a not is divergence but the diverging ways in which they characterize it appear as an end point. The elephant, Kuhn’s the investigate with menassociated Theblind description. all be must believe, I so that, concern collective about point the misses example this But incommensurability. Kuhnian of workings the illustrate to used been second the a swatter,fly a snake,and third the has sometimesa trunk, ognizing it. making risks of whoever position the endanger it will not, but if versy; end of contro a the herald move a will such placed, well If or her colleagues. his closed virtually and that any one still objecting isdefeated virtually in the eyes of possible but dangerous very move game. It that this the case in is means betting sophical or social factors of the game. Interpreting the position of a colleague as contingent upon philo rules the of infraction consideredan be will objection an facing evade or dirty so.not dodo they if defeated be deemed will and work to their and comparison to lend required themselves as moreprecisely, such in competitions antagonists the are regarded by colleagues by and concern common a by only the concerned possible a protagonists made is lending themselvesdescribed and their comparison Kuhn work to which words, comparison. in Or,other In situation fields. their of future the as well as reputations, concern intense of matter a in hesitation passionate and competent of tale a into them wove Kuhn because is it psychology, crowd about less still and making, sion to. attention due pay complicated and defensive interpretations, and this is precisely what protagonists isforced program tocomesresearch produce when increasingly aparadigmatic defeat point), Kuhn’s also was it that recognizing (without argued Lakatos As consequences. challenging experimentally and emergentquestions with ciated asso be can whatever privileges that and ofconcern matter same the shares that terested comparison, but rather an active and interested one made by a collective devoid of “good” reasons. defeats What a is paradigm never objective, an disin death. Indeed; but it does not mean at all that the final decisionwill beirrational, until interpretation their by stand havenot defeated, objectively been they will argument insisting scientists, some that remark famous Planck’s incommensurability Max for the reason the of and meaning the both is This result. new the of digm E will probably be able to produce, in one way or another, an interpretation The famous tale of the three blind men and the elephant, one man rec man one elephant, the and men blind three the of tale famous The I would conclude revolutions that if Kuhnian are not about deci arbitrary — which is to say, a matter on which researchers bet their careers and and careers their bet researchers which on say,matter to a is which

—

which is what critical constructionists freely do Everyone involved knows that any attempt to play play to attempt any that knows involved Everyone

—

is a ------

Stengers • Comparison as a Matter of Concern 53 Common Knowledge 54 duce scientists’ outrage and blind rhetorical retaliation. With the advent the of the With rhetoricalretaliation. blind and outrage ducescientists’ to These advocates had and objections comparisons. no power to other pro than their labs and the achievement of which was the reason why they lent themselves away; baby that is, was of the thrown kind event in that has dancing had scientists argument rationality” “scientific the of abuse (mainly) and use the resist to advocates its relevant. too only become juncture everyoneelsesitting.)and are men blind Thewouldparable atofthree the this to weakening the promise of a field.(You do not saw theoff branch on which you might argument lead of scientific aone should not weakness object muchthe if that prevail will wisdom general the and past; the of thing a be soon probably will objections, such resisting than meaning other no has reliability because welcomeobject to are colleagues which in describing, been have I game lective col The interest. commercial no of be patents)would existent already (given which to answer the questions ignore to or secret work their of aspects keep to bound are conditions such under Moreover, scientists investors. of appetite the stimulating and promise, demonstrating patenting, for enough good seem that claims need they reliability; experimental notneed do interests Industrial resisting their colleagues’ objections and compelling their colleagues’ agreement. facts their have to duty the by mobilized longernobe will interests, industrial of destroying such bonds. Scientists, as they are directly mobilized by competing them (and no longer). Indeed the knowledge economy, so called, is in the process measurement. experimental to itself lends “reality” way events interpretationwhen the isauthorized by the claimed be it can particular reproduction continuation and ofthe is very such ity.practitioners binds What of which resist can the charge that have they been imposed on some mute real exclusive kind of event or achievement: the production of facts the interpretation and special a follows from heldparadigm A common. in notis doctrine a digm matic sciences is the possibility of a collective game to bind colleagues. A para other practices, conflict paradigwouldWhat distinguishes stubbornly prevail. comparative judgments about their colleagues’ research, while, the context in of ize such scientists as having a special capacity orenabling character training them not to make would I Popperian. not is here point my that underline also would “outside.” as of I think to agree paradigm research a within operate who those a perspective that theratifies closure of scientific communities andignores what vations. I am dealing with paradigmatic sciences as seen from Kuhn’s perspective, “due attention.” impose to power the address all and their respective interpretations to active comparison, that giving which they Kuhn’s “incommensurability argument” has been invoked by most of of most by invoked been has argument” “incommensurability Kuhn’s I should add that what binds them just binds as practitioners long as it binds Let me obser be these clear about which from I the standpoint am making — and it may be said that, however important the bathwater, a crucial bathwater, crucial a the however important that, said be itmay and ------

Gallimard, is now more like a contest mating knowledge legiti or of of matter deciding a what may be primarily compared longer with no what. is Comparison rapport the of creation the underscored, of “mob psychology”). (choice matter a leaders as rival two between one assimilating scientists hesitating between rival paradigms to a mob hesitating the as dubious comparison as Ita operation.is comparative probablyunilateral the same word we use for some of our own hunting practices is with them a ofverynaming fact dubiousvery the and different, and effectively are practices these the hunter involves the agreement of the prey. The point that matters here is that compared? being are that terms the between agreement an require it not, does or it, Does aim. the with begins challenge political and ethical The aim. an to is Commensurability experiences. understands the behavior of his prey, in spite of the incommensurability of their hunterwho ofthe aim the as clear as is ofwhich aim the ofcomparison, art an defensive. the Kuhn’s is not aboutanalogy general; in comparability it concerns on another one put and another one challenge to situations experimental ing design their to prerequisite the even is Itother’s words. each translate to how breakdown does not make it impossible for the protagonists in crisisthis to learn torestorewhich in it. But a such language nothereis and neutral protagonists, translation. Diverging paradigms means a breakdown in communication between offered that Kuhn andbetween practice the incommensurability of analogy the with starting transition the effect comparison. Iwill associatedwith challenges this symposium, it is in order to approach some aspects of the ethical and political reliability. and objections relates that of achievement kind the with connection any lost having dangerous, and arrogant more only weaker, any authority and rationality, scientific for objectivity, claims make not will verification this since rejoicing for nocause have Butcritics past. ofthe thing a becoming is lab the in knowledge economy, the antirealist critiques may well be verified.fully Dancing 2 scores that the contest between the two men is a fair one. Each appears, and is is and appears, one.Each fair a is men two the between contest the that scores of world.the pagan whose the embodies all virtues knight character Péguy under comparison is between the Christian Polyeucte martyr and Severus, a Roman defines cartésienne contest. of the terms the relevant as accept sides both that . Charles Péguy, Péguy, Charles Agreeing is accepting a “rapport.” And when the need for agreement is is agreement for need the when And “rapport.” a accepting is Agreeing of understanding the where practices hunting about us tell Ethnologists If experimental sciences are of interest in the much more general context of Charles Péguy’s beautiful text Note conjointe text sur M. Descartes et la philosophie beautiful Péguy’s Charles Polyeucte 1992 is a good place to begin outlining my approach. my outlining begin to place good a is ), ), 1278 Œuvres en prose complètes prose en Œuvres , a tragedy of Corneille’s, as a case of “perfect comparison.” The – 1477 , at

— 1367

one with importance for both sides, one that requires – 75 . , vol. vol. , created and it is never neutral, always relative relative always neutral, never itis and created 3 (Paris: (Paris: 2 In this text, Péguy Péguy text, this In - - -

Stengers • Comparison as a Matter of Concern 55 Common Knowledge 56 involving East and West, or North and South, words and such as myth Euro- the nowcalled mythologi between contrast the andbelongs to whatis Greekis of discourse or origin scientific rational and cal example, prime a To take parties. the of one just must not be and, unilateral especially, must not be conducted of the in language comparison words, other In criteria. irrelevant of imposition the resist to able each present own his version of what the comparison is about; and each must be cannot compared parties the if legitimate is comparison no that is implication destroy. eventually would Christianity that civilization pagan of the greatness comparison In other causes. words, lend actively abase they respective to their themselves the not will have won managed toby having weaken other. the foul play Any would does not win depend on depends them. What on them is one thatthe who wins concerned to appear, in his particular full force. They share the idea that who will be. What do we mean by by mean wedo What be. we follow Péguy, should out be radically ofruled order. the As word unfair comparisons. The mode of existence of experimental beings, such as elec as such beings, experimental of existence of mode The comparisons. unfair as denounces Péguy whatto leadsstraight whenpressed, demand, tique.”This with a demand that whatever exists demonstrate its existence against “the cri itself, God along though it past, the Christian laterwas raised against missionary isaheritage beings” ofChristian ofquestion the ofexistence “supernatural the Greek the continuation. retain polemical apparatusor The crucial its Christian so- them. not interest does perhaps that question a to witnesses as others the concernbetween “nature”disconnection about and “culture,” ruling the taking play of this kind. The term’s use could well lead to undue extensions of their own ardo Viveiros de Castro, Bruno Latour, and others) may be ill protected from foul term oxymoronic deliberately the that context and the arbiter.is a both protagonist participant I should perhaps mention in this play foul as characterize any comparison involving or implying the nature/culture opposition what lends and rewards it. itself to intel Following inquiry rational Péguy, I and would thus as consistent polemicist, as the of ally the as Nature appears It it. about neutral caves. nothing and has ligible mountains, rivers, Greek inhabited that deities many the against and lands distant about wonderful relatedtravelers by gossip and tales the against it)both called themselves they (as “rationality” of from the polemical maneuver that, in Greece, counterposed the new proponents of the category does obvious has nothing about Lloyd it. Geoffrey As has argued, the existence called natural and supernatural causations should be reason enough not to to not enough reason be should causations supernatural and natural called Péguy’s proposition is very demanding and, as such, very interesting. His His interesting. very such, as and, demanding very is proposition Péguy’s Finally, the abusive consequences of our routine opposition between between opposition routine our of consequences abusive the Finally, — — definable here as a play in relation to which the Euro- the which to relation in play a as here definable which is why, according to Péguy, to why, is which according nature , which did not exist in ancient China, cannot be dissociated American traditions of thought. In a comparative inquiry inquiry comparative a ofIn thought. traditions American nature ? A term that covers neutrinos, pigs, and torna multinature Polyeucte had to display the full (as employed by Edu by (as employed nature American American science should , if ------

trons and neutrinos and trons storytellers, teachers of popular creeds and customs, and other inadequately cre inadequately other and customs, and creeds ofteachers popular storytellers, never be dissociated from an overpowering determination to silence or eradicate ent ofobjectivity which only recalls that the general idea of itselfobjectivity can them concern notdo that categories others on impose science. of medical practitioner certified herbs) or the and mixtures, enforce an distinctionartificial betweenthe charlatan (withhis or her ointments, and choice draw to informed ofpolemically a one is result rapport, healing the force. That effective modern as medicine does a so, therapeutically that it ignores imagination the must disqualify arts case thatthe healing the isnot analytically healing practices frames a significant issuein (yet again) polemical terms, since it patient or understands. feels, To thinks, criterionimpose this using on drugs all a legitimate one only if it concerns a drug that claims to work no matter what the when the efficacy of adrug is comparedwith that of a placebo.This comparison testing, is of clinical of case sociobiology). the scandal in real the is tion Likewise defini (this interest individual of terms in explained be cannot that anything as demands a clear- group selection as rival causes whose relative power must be compared. To do so in terms favorable to one of them. Sociobiology casts individual selection and be causes compared two that tion has emerged a from scene, requiring polemical self- altruistic of terms in society widely applicable. Another example is found in sociobiology, with its definition of what really concerns me: the poverty of definitionsour ruling whole scene. the shapes that relevance, than rather polemics, it is that indicates natural is the impossibility of awayexplaining an “natural event in terms of causes,natural where hypothetical of terms in away causes.” Thus the only explained (and be very poor) can definition of a healing “supernaturalintervention” a if decide to ered hierarchy awaits, beforemiracle, thea confirming verdict of physicians empow not. does what and exists what between distinction our trouble to power the have is, that not, do entities Symbolic exist. not but does efficacious is that includesthat all category symbolic”:thewide and“efficacy of reassuring a very force. Typically ownparticular she is relegated to a category such as thefamous A being of faith, the Blessed for Virgin example, is precluded from revealing her ademand 3 Plessis- Tobie Nathan and Stengers, Tobie Stengers, and Nathan . See Isabelle Stengers, “Le Médecin et le charlatan,” in in charlatan,” le et Médecin “Le Stengers, Isabelle See The examples I have offered are of unilateral, one- unilateral, of are offered have I examples The My point here is not about universalism versus relativism so much as about church the sites, miracle other and Lourdes at when, arrives yet Worse Robinson- means, foremost, exclusion foremost, of means, the

—

is taken as the yardstick (when yardstick the as it nottaken isisof target critique). itself the Synthélabo, Synthélabo, cut separation between the rivals: social behavior must be defined

— Médecins et Sorciers

which indeed exist only because they have satisfied such such satisfied have they because only exist indeed which 1995 ). sacrifice. Once again, this rather strange defini strange rather this again, Once sacrifice. (Paris: Le Le (Paris: super natural. natural. The brilliance of featthis — sided definitions that definitions sided categories the appar the categories

—

and the point is 3 - - - - -

Stengers • Comparison as a Matter of Concern 57 Common Knowledge 58 destroyed is that all are equally subject to eradication. subject equally are all that is destroyed already were that life of forms and practices many the and practices modern the same similarity. as Itaffirming is not a question of comparison.What relates great divide between nature and closeness, culture. Affirming in this sense, is not whohave already been destroyed name the of in rationality, objectivity, and the those with closeness our affirm that and process this from us disentangle that words provide may it but us, save likely not will speculate to Daring illusions. our beyond served really we what demonstrate finally would that process a of outcome logical the not like destruction, like fatetosound our I want well. as so fabulate to vigor the him do to gave strength the me give defeat to imminent however, own our like would I create. and Christianity, of that defeat, of The man. defeated a of experience cry the is) work his of all (as is Christianity and paganism between contest the of characterization Péguy’s ours. before been worldshave them. to most matters that all for knell death the powered, to submit to questions that are not only irrelevant but that indeedoveror impressed sound easily or notnaive are whopeople for even itis, howsimple comparisons that are reshaping academic life radically is sufficient to demonstrate “objective”productivity and systems ranking the facing world academic in the that make them available for its comparative operations. Theterms relativein passivity ofworlds own our redefining of process the in is Technoscience mine. concerns “us” academics “us” concerns us in the modern West as much as it does our distant others. And it now urgently itself felt here. I selected my examples so as to recall that challengethis concerns of others.” “beliefs of the explorers fearless or metaphysicians, bad inquisitors, sad produced has existing” “really as recognized be must what terms it enrolls. For impossibility instance, science the as it has silence, been enrolled both in orderaffects enacts power silencing toThis and attention. due determine demanding ofor objecting of presupposes that standard a of imposition the nance, or because progress means to crush illusion. The imperative always means ofin terms knowledge to objective be or mastered, in the name of gover rational the imperative “comparison “comparison imperative the with problemThe of matter fact. intoa begins turned of being matter concern rability possible. The problem is not that some such operations get forgotten, the European, that they are “ours,” rather that they “happened” to us first. been used to dismember, eradicate, or appropriate. I would thus avoid saying, as a categories have always wherewerethese Europe, born, they in underscorethat of“Euro- character tive destruc the discover well may Ethnologists knowledge. to claimants dentialed As academics, weAs belong now to worlds of defeat,on brink the soas many The ethical and political challenge associated with comparativism makes makes comparativism with associated challenge political and ethical The The problem is not with comparison and the operation making commensu making operation the and comparison with not is problem The American” categories whenwouldappliedelsewhere.I categories American”

—

that is, the contributors and readers of such texts as as readerscontributors and oftexts the such is, that must be possible.”be imperativemay justified be This - - - - have called have called size both the divergence and the possibility of destruction that characterize what I matters”? us upon gaze Virgin’s Blessed of the force transformative the pilgrims going to a miracle site were to “we affirm: diverge from science because if What exist! practice experimental the whatmakes is ofwhich possibility the forus.” case wereif what As this in notis called objectivity a name for event the matters what is objectivity because diverge “we Galileo: since propaganda tific as a divergence divergence a as totest it its consequence. and and to verify imagine To divergence describe this not be separated from the community for which it crucially matters and which is “objective” authorizes an that Andanevent. is definition, aneventit is thatcan whatbecause creation forof the matters practices, experimenters, are arapport sciences Experimental itself. produces itlikewise as divergence, of line own its dueing attention; and situations matter. that is, of things having Each produces way of pay distinct and positive have does its Each own others. from divergence of its terms in itself notdefine does practice A constitutive. Itis notrelational. is it practices; between not is Divergence comparison. for fuel into divergence diverge. it makes what also is exist one each makes what because equivalency, ensuring ofimposition standard a the and of comparison imperative the by destroyed be practice been destroyed, however, is what I call however,call I what is destroyed, been will still have specialists busying themselves in their laboratories. What will have We conditions. mere“adaptation”new a to as appear continuity, of appearances Ecology of Practices,” of Practices,” Ecology 4 183 heterogeneity relations. It may be said that a predator/prey ecology obtains wherever the criteria practices). environing other ment (including notthe dissociate meantto indicate as well that practices should betermsthat do in characterized tagonist diverges positively (and not from the others). Using the term term the others).Using the (andnot from positively diverges tagonist ethos the how of terms specific quite the in rather but terms, general in not matter subject their define to naturalists induce ecology natural in Situations onists. . See Isabelle Stengers, “Introductory Notes on an an on Notes “Introductory Stengers, Isabelle See – 96

— Some years ago, I the ideaintroduced of an “ecology of to practices” empha It here is crucial not to read “diverge from others,” as doing so would turn Eradicationmay, knowledge the with case economy,is as the preserve the The simplest situation for ecologists is definedin terms of predator/prey . in a rather unusual sense, as denoting any form of life that is bound to concerns crucial and habits, behaviors, needs, the is, that practice

— from

by which I mean situations that relate heterogeneous protag heterogeneous relate that situations mean I which by ethos Cultural Studies Review Studies Cultural . 4 I use ecology use I other practices is a trap. Such a trap has been laid by scien of its from a practice , as a transversal category, to help define relational

11 . 1 ( divergence 2005 oikos ): ):

— . Hence I would take the term term the Hence. wouldI take the way the it defines environ its — of each pro ofeach ecology is is ------

Stengers • Comparison as a Matter of Concern 59 Common Knowledge 60 associated with terms like like terms with associated The gain in clarity of the usage usage the of clarity in gain The ers as potential prey; and all sciences will defineas prey whatever is nototh scientific. define freely will objectivity of definitions stronger maintain that practices on offer in metaphysics between, on the one hand, a hand, one the on between, metaphysics in offer on James’s a ideaof William by suggested is ofrapport thatsymbiosis may about. bring The of importance symbiotic events kinds many the in interest the is thinking commonplace this all to Alternative imposed as conditions for science, governance, or the need to identify relativist charlatans. the are equivalence escape and to commensurability wherebyrhetoric order very in the is It menace. postulated be must what than other nothing is ity universal that said be even it and can universality, we choose that it. It demands other). each by destroyed or are destroy and that practices are thus blindly indifferent to each other, except insofar as they relativism(meaning that each practice has its incommensurableown standpoint either universality (meaning that all practices have something in common) us: or haunts “either/or” else that the of out way a indicate also may they And life. of that they not ofconnection, harmony. It of such as ispartial ofamatter are opportunity, events Symbiotic other. each need now interests diverging that only common, in related by but common interests, their own manner what matters for them. Symbiosis means that these beings are in defining on go diverging, on go relatedbeings Symbiotically diverge. terms events,such symbiosis,aspositively that relate heterogeneous even terms the as be) need (if resist. and feel, think, to practitioners its motivates what practice, each for matters what determine that attachments the diverging, practical attachments standing in the way of systemic flexibility flexiblytransformingthemselves. What will have been eradicated,though, are all compar the not people who will die, obviously; governance, and it is (good) always or possible Itis tocatastrophe. ecological speak an as ofdescribable are practicesauthorize they as operations ative rationality of pretensions the Whatever whole. posi highest and central any there is nor tion from which a ruler couldduties, assign to eachand protagonist its part in a harmonious rights assess could arbiter an with neutrality: in an ecological situation, there is no neutral position from which bow down to some general interest). The idea of ecology the idealwith of harmony,is peace, (inareand which asked goodwill parties all toincompatible, moreover, set of phenomenasame made oneness, justifying efforts at overcoming discordance, and, on the other other the on and, discordance, overcoming at efforts justifying oneness, made As itAs is the case with many an either/or, one this has nothing neutral about connecting- about also but only, prey and predators about not is ecology Still, contact of point no has it that is ecology to recourse the of interest Another

are these days taken to be the very sourceto daysvery ofbe taken arethe these innovation history the in — naturalism objectivity common predator and and — pal . able lp a p s i does not mean having the same interest rationality / prey pluriverse over the more usual term for the are universally applied, are universally since . Unsatisfied with thechoice with Unsatisfied. universe , with its ready- its with ,

— - - - -

2010 Press, Minnesota of University (Minneapolis: Bonomo them to learn and also allow those they learn from to learn as well, and for their sociologistsand show way, the allow to that create struggle connections they as hereit that wellmaybe some And ethnologists pluriverse. Jamesian tothe tion event,”“symbiotic the creation of a new of “rapport,”kind demanding a contribu arguments against the technoscientifictransformation of our world(s) would be a relevant formulate to expertise and cooperation their needing groups with tion Connec progress. and proponents of reason role consensual as their to is betray divergence,specific very their way fromwhattheyofhaving matter, learn alive, their keep to scientists for possibility only the that be well may It colleagues. with deal when as they nonscientists with deal a way when they demanding as in know present to what they learning welcome scientists would furthermore and shouldnot However, be killed. need scientific others still research tobe reliable she that warning goose’s the to ear deaf a turn to decided now have research utter utter proclaiming while gold into “eggs” the turn could that allies interest and try to free be would scientists that meant Butitalso progress. general to tribution con ofits because fed unconditionally be it should that claimed golden eggs lay autonomy,it may wellbe to consider its price. goosethat Science famous this the as of loss the over lament than Rather autonomy. past their of remains sad some defend to trying by be not will they eradication, survive to science,”are “modern call we what of birth the marked which of invention the practices, tal very hypothesis that developed into an “ecology of practices.” of “ecology an into developed that hypothesis very as orgiven, eradicationwith survival as their only prospect. Such was for me the orbeing assuch, it demandsalso thatwe not accept wayssettled of orlife being life of ways heterogeneous between connection the events, symbiotic of terms standpoints. diverging of other legitimacy the able assert to becomes away’s idea of “situated standpoints,” in which each standpoint, in situating itself, denizens about what matters. James’s pluriverse may be related to Donna Har eradication of dream unthinking the of inverse the is vision value.” This in “rise it having creation is an event to be celebrated as adding a new dimension to the whole and tic, or otherwise), then participates in James’s pluriverse in therapeu the religious, making. Each (experimental, such meaning its whatever “rapport,” a of creation divergences communicate, Ithat the but called What always partially. partially, indifferenceing, but breaking no encompassing bringing unity. means Plurality a hand, 5 proposed that the world is a pluriverse .

See Isabelle Stengers, Stengers, Isabelle See ). nonresponsibility If the making of the pluriverse that James celebrates is to be thought in in thought be to is celebrates James that pluriverse the of making the If multiverse — the dream of the dream a world improved agreement by among its a universal , made of disconnected parts indifferent to each other, each James to indifferent parts disconnected ofmade , Cosmopolitics I Cosmopolitics for the eventual outcome. that fedAllies public scientific , trans. Robert Robert trans. , in in the making. Connections are in the mak the in are Connections 5 If experimen ------

Stengers • Comparison as a Matter of Concern 61 Common Knowledge 62 we call “humans,” common humanity is a trap, since it defines divergence as divergence defines it since trap, a is humanity common “humans,” call we position of the other. isThis why, when those one wishes to learn from are what force,” the one no “full ensuring and “foul play”weakening their with in terms experimenters, as in both cases what matters is that rapports be created between the and Péguy both from derived be may which rule, onegeneral only is there fully. consequences the of considering challenge the evade may rapports of production the which in ways many the at directed be should it be, must there debunking a If of rapport. creation ano knowledgeis without knowledgetherethere thatbecause is no “innocent” affirmation but an claims, tionsand consequences. of isthen, notRelativism, universalistic debunking the situa to attention due pay how to learning involves which knowledge, situating of art the we learn collectively, that, requires answering our reflexivity, critical tionsought to be a matter of collective concern and accountability. Rather than innocent ones. is, be, or affected,and Who how? will The answer to such ques rapport are notand (again) butpragmatic, epistemological, never rather political, not harmony. From an ecological viewpoint, the questions raised by a creation of the creation of rapport between divergent interests as they diverge, mean novelty, interestsstands conflicting as being a generalrule. Ecological, symbiotic events, one. innocent an never local, precarious event and, more crucially (I agree a utterlyalways is with rapport Donna a of Haraway),creation the else, everything to related always is thing every While peace. universal ofutopia impending an notimply does pluriverse James’s to reference my that clear be to closing, in want, I case, the Whatever reasons. whoown enter for beings rapport their a sentientto addressed beings, these wereinstitutions never good places for what learning science means when as they were around the generalization of research programs. It may well be that thatmay fromfreeus any for nostalgia academic invented research institutions, questions. their answers what from entists sci the clearly disentangles that ofconsequences inventive a dynamics authorize scope otherthe of words,rapport.extends andtests In the rapport the does not both that work?”not it did ,” . “why . . if ,” . “what . . then “but of succession the program,” the “research is case our in lacking is what because insufficient, is rapport,” experimental of creation the in case the also is “such answer, The situation. “science,”the from what is no is learned there way to since disentangle prey.as them defines what but to learn from them as they become able to produce relevant ways of resisting are,” they “as others the from learn notto is case this in point The sakes. own Returning to comparativism as a to method ofcomparativism I learning, would Returning conclude that This is the ultimate interest of our reference to ecology. Ecology under one the point, crucial the is difference this accepting that be well may It It may be objected that what would be learned in case this cannot be called - - - - - divergence ofown your terms you presentin that demands yourself This face. human, too human, your in spit to even and answer, to refuse or agree to interest, your of relevance the evaluate to empowered be must address you Those secondary. comparison. We are returned here to the Latin etymology of “comparison”: com “comparison”: of par etymology Latin the to here returned are We comparison. compari no is there but son comparison, if the encountered imply others are indeed definedas may unable tounderstand the point of encountering the and tering, which means also able to disagree, object, negotiate, and contest. and negotiate, object, able disagree, to also means which equals as other each regard who those designates

—

of what to matters you, and how. from” encoun requires “Learning —

that is, as able to agree, ableagree, to as is, that - - -

Stengers • Comparison as a Matter of Concern 63 Symposium: Comparative Relativism

Comparison as Participant

Helen Verran

Resist the easy interpretation of the image of a fetching young man in flax loin- cloth stretching a rope to (re)constitute ancient Egypt’s muddy expanse of the Nile delta as measured fields. This origin story of comparison as achieved in practices, gestures with ropes and sticks alone, leaves out far too much. This is comparison by fiat, but then so are the Platonic versions of comparison, which regard qualities as abstract forms and, on the basis of them, impose measurement, value, number — in short, these are comparison as imperium. The imperial spokesmen say: “comparison must be possible, because objective knowledge must be attained.” In my terms, such imperial comparisons, whether universalist or relativist, are kinds of “foundationism.”1 And I agree with Stengers that rendering the contemporary experimental sciences as either of these kinds imposes on them “a standard ensuring equivalency” — a machine that destroys “in the name of rationality, objectivity, and the great divide between nature and culture.” In contrast to both these foundationisms, Stengers persuades us of the liveliness of comparison as itself a participant in collective action. The specific “participant comparison” that scientists deal with and through (often by use of numbering) is their familiar or agent in the action of going on together.

1. For “foundationism,” see Helen Verran, Science and an African Logic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 14 – 18.

64 heat and cold. Instead qualities like length like qualities cold.Instead heatand like opposites as terms, Aristotelian in ofqualities thinking stoppeople to had Two significant changes, however, needed to first. AsDuhem occur pointed out, or rapport of “a creation the filter,” orevent: “a sieve an or method, as but practice a as not comparison understand to need we but argues, Stengers of nature. demise the than less of nothing symptomatic it as see I claim, which I take seriously, perhaps more seriously even than Stengersthis to back come does, forwill I interests. commercial for eggs golden lay sciences the the appetite of investors,”and promise, stimulating which is an end in itself when epistemiccontest, it neverthelessis“good enough for patenting, demonstrating for enough solid means no by is industry, to beholden scientists by conducted “dancing in the lab is becoming a thing of the past.” While bad- asfoundationist comparison joins market the ever- an in sciences. the Sheinvolving challenges andpolitical isconcerned ofthat, ethical underway. Without this understanding we will not attain the better grasp we need often told, he almost single- almost hetold, often introducedofGalileo’s, suchis comparisons.The first with which, or so are we Stengers’sseries a paper,meet we In innocent. way no in are comparisons and events these “participant- call of actually practices scientists standardized of engagement, each of them specifying that it is only with with only is it that specifying them of each engagement, of science. I would add to listthis various other series of material routines and rules participant- forthe crucial are devices, material specialized very with along bodies, somehow inhabit which degree, ing Qualities, attributes, and properties constituted as extensions singular of vary avalanche). an to (as opposed manner frictionless ideally no have which bodies, of source motion Galilean (as internal to opposed a or car a horse) call and move in an may we what of that motion, of kind it relevant to space- is nor qualities, all to relevant not obviously is plane inclined The one. general a never is rapport a such But measurement. the to itself lends measured is what that claiming authorizes that rapport a rapport: of device, experimental first the is thekind of achievement is which device tothe first createunusual a very plane inclined The so. do to him enabled plane inclined the it because is offall, its moments at determinate body a of velocity of degrees varying the compare to able was Galileo If Stengers shows us that the crucial final element was the inclined plane: inclined the elementwas final crucial the that us shows Stengers as a matter of degree. But these accomplishments were not thatall was required. ated entity, velocity The sciences can indeed be characterized as addressing comparison, comparison, addressing as characterized be indeed can sciences The As Stengers As sees it, we need to understand thatentities thatemerge the in time motion general. in time It identifies a quitespecific

—

were repurposed as a single extension: length and velocity handedly brought about the Scientific Revolution. Scientific broughtaboutthe handedly comparisons.”scientific participants, measures As comparisons and enumerated entities ofenumerated and entities comparisons

— participate

or in the case of Galileo’s enumer Galileo’s of case the in or in the specific comparisons strengthening alliance, alliance, strengthening these faith comparison, gestures and and gestures logos .”I - -

Verran • Response to Stengers 65 2 . Common Knowledge 66 Verran, Verran, Science and an African Logic African an and Science thus is a particular sort of presentation, a particular figuring. a particular of presentation, sort a particular is thus becoming The numbers. as present children and children enumerated is boy the as much as ’Diran, upon, settled numeral the interpolates so arranged of strings the and announcing lifting The sequential centimeters.” four ninety- have we “Yes, meters). láàádôràán àrùún Then holding the bit of string remaining against the graduations on the the on graduations the against “ card: remaining string of bit the holding Then Nigeria: the in Nigeria in Yorubaclassrooms in eyes my before life to ated entity: a new participant- new a entity: ated enumer of sort new a to birth gave of part was Galileo that action collective the or science lesson in Nigeria gives birth to a new sort of enumerated entity, just as of rapport, emerges in his lessons. The collective action that is a classroom math orgesture wordusing this here and othersthere, a new sort of event, a new sort comparison. device, This along a new with set of material routines andfor rules anew toMr. life participant of Ojoplus brings string, alength divisions, cm in words, upin coming a with new device with some specialized devices and routines, constitute Yoruba numbers. In other degreesof (not dividedness degreesas of qualities extension), with which, along ofparticipant- Yorubaa type with begins Mr.Ojo hero the is of participant- the family result. desired the about bring words at comparison enumeratedentity. rendering isof This anotherjust ofform course relativizing comparison, or enumerated entity, my with story of by analogy Mr. Ojo and his participant- hatched newly his and Galileo narrative’s her understand I terms, Stengers’s rendering In terminology. odder) (and homely more own my into Stengers’s Ihaveretelling is beendoing sofar What story, rendering her terms each touches Ojo Mr. card. little a around wound now is head, his of top the near point a at it holding Ojo Mr. with and heel his under end one with stretched was before moment a which string, The enumerated. becoming class the before standing was ’Diran boy little a classroom Ojo’s Mr. In , Hereis how I have described participant- the ofenumerated ofnew sort aentity, new membera ofstory similar a tell I Môkönléláàádôràán ëfà , this ” (ninety- ” èje — ,

— time (and not at other times) during the course of the event that will ëjo the Galileo of the Yoruba postcolonial classroom. In this story, this In classroom. Yorubapostcolonial the of Galileo the

showing samenesses and differences. and samenesses showing , ësán , 105–6 one, ninety- one, (one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine). nine). eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, (one, 10 , . cm interval of the string string the of interval cm méjì léláàádôràán comparisons of which sciences, came comparisons the contemporary four centimeters. ’Diran’s height is ninety- is height ’Diran’s centimeters. four mêrìnléláàádôràán two, ninety- two, comparison emerged onto the scene. onto the emerged comparison , — mêtàléláàádôràán three, ninety- three, a little a card, little . Numerals become as as become Numerals . mêrìnléláàádôràán Ökan comparison that is present as as present is that comparison , comparisonI met in up with èjì four centi four 10 , 2 , ëta mêrìnlé cm long and marked out out marked and long cm , ërin is is - - , 1980 s. Mr. Ojo Ojo Mr. s. - Social Studies of Science of Studies Social Landowners,” and Aboriginal Scientists of Environmental Regimes Firing Alternative Studies: Science in Moment 3 tralia,” tralia,” Strategies of Land Management: Indigenous Land Own Land Indigenous Management: Land of Strategies challenge: numbers. about that are embedded in our ways of doing numbers in classrooms and in our stories and nineteenth- Athens and Jerusalem, as well as the ghosts of fifteenth- story about enumerated new a entities tell of to science, I terms struggled with the ancient their ghosts of retooling To extent some hospital. Dutch a in lives their Mol, as she Annemarie down assiduously the tracked living many atheroscleroses actor- about worried and invented they as Callon, Michel Law, John Latour,and Bruno Whitehead); of granddaughter intellectual an is Stengers, (who, Addelson like Pyne Kathryn others: of writing the was struggle to I as struggled tell responsible life stories of Yoruba classrooms. A help this in to came that gestures) and words of routines and string, card, Ojo’slittle Mr. rapport with, and to credit the participant- the credit to and with, rapport by a participant- unconvinced elders remain Aboriginal and modeled recursion onkinship; dual participant- Aborigines’ the unacceptable find Scientists versa. vice and Aborigines from learn to gling into my own. I have often worked with and told stories about scientists strug parties. the of one just and, especially, mustbe not unilateral of be conducted language the in imposition of other words, In irrelevant criteria. must comparison not the resist to able be must each and about; is comparison the what of version own his present each cannot compared parties the if legitimate implication isno interesting. that His and, assuch,very is comparison demanding very is comparisons] comparing [of proposition Péguy’s they usefully address the issue of over the usefully they crossing of Or in knowledge traditions. their familiars, the participant- They need to be able to recognize how these are expressed in the constitution of commitments. epistemic and ontic own their concerning explicitness an with and faith good in act to need scientists and Aborigines that see we stories, my . See Helen Verran, “Re- Verran, Helen See Postcolonial Postcolonial Studies For Stengers, comparing comparisons involves an ethical and political political and ethical an involves comparisons comparing Stengers, For re- this With Once again, and even more immodestly, I will translate Stengers’s terms translate will I immodestly, more even and again, Once century Enlightenment Britain, in order to disinter assumptions orderin assumptions to disinter Britain, Enlightenment century comparison effected through qualities. Each struggles to achieve

32 .

rendering, I have been showing a means (quite to means a rendering,analogous haveshowing I been 5 1 – ( Imagining Land Title in Aus in Title Land Imagining 199 6 ( 2002 8 comparison, which is achieved through the device of a of device the through achieved is which comparison, ): ): 237 ): ): 1 – – 54 comparisons they hang out with. Only then might 34 ;

; “Transferring “A Postcolonial “A Postcolonial comparison of, the other as agent. as other the of, comparison - - “Science and the Dreaming,” Dreaming,” the and “Science ety in Scientists,” Environmental and ers , ed. Marianne de Laet (Oxford: Elsevier, de Elsevier, Laet (Oxford: , ed. Marianne century mercantilecentury Italy network theory; and and theory; network Issues

82 3 In In (March 2008 (March Knowledge and Soci and Knowledge -

2002 ), ), 155 ): ): – 23 81 . - ; Verran • Response to Stengers 67 ers ers Find,” Research University] [Stanford Biodiversity, lia’sDesert 4 www.sciencedaily.com/releases/ .htm. . Common Knowledge 68 See “Aboriginal Hunting and Burning Increase Austra Increase and Burning Hunting See “Aboriginal ScienceDaily epistemic commitments, leaves itself with nowhere to turn. nowhere to with itself leaves commitments, epistemic and ontic its of nature the about philosophy by misled be to itself allowing by science, it: have might Stengers and Whitehead as Or recognition. this of way insistent to refusal recognize their ontic and epistemic commitments gets in the sciences’ the yet itthat seems practices, divergence in positive the recognize to exhibitAborigines to negotiate when trying pastoralists. with Stengers wants us that innovate to capacity same the have they that recognize to need they tices; goings- own their in find to need Scientists participate? landowners Aboriginal and Ojo Mr. which challenge. and enable resistance and inspire that resources metaphysical the of awareness abandoned not have communities knowledge these sciences, the Unlike thought. of traditions YorubaAboriginal oreither than vulnerable and brittle, fragile, moreit makes comparisons its with deals science way The traditions. knowledge other by live who those and science by live who those to comparisons. But there is a significantdifference betweenthe resources available friends Aboriginal my and Ojo Mr. defeat. a truly is comparison) foundationist (by defeat imminent this that researchers, what we need to do, she says, is make it clear, to ourselves and others, defeat occurs, that we were when acknowledge, to us for way a find to wants She defeat. honorable an for conditions the articulating of task the herself sets Stengers knell, death its ing sound are that demands with complying and to submitting defeat, looming others.” distant our does it Westas much modern as the in us concerns . . . comparisons] our [comparing Stengers notes, “the ethical and political challenge associated with comparativism to agree, which means also able to disagree, object, negotiate, and contest.” Yet, as and go on together in burning (managing) the land: the (managing) burning in together on go and Aborigines might be connected enough to enable them to learn from each other Stengers’s terms, the events that are the comparison events of both scientists and parison’: parison’: of‘com etymology Latin the here to We returned are comparison. ofthe point the understand to unable as defined are others encountered the if comparison nois but there comparison, implyindeed may encountering and encountering, , May So how might the sciences learn from knowledge traditions like those in in those like traditions knowledge from learn sciences the how might So As I see it, in urging this course upon us, she would have us do exactly what Despairing at the ways in which the academy currently connives in its own its in own connives at academy the ways which in the currently Despairing 5 compar , 2010 2010 , accessed July , accessed designates those whothose designates regard each other as equals / 05 / 100503174030 on the disconcerting creativity of Mr. Ojo’s creativity disconcerting on divergent the prac 23

— , 2010

in our own terms - - ,

refuse to do when faced with foundationist foundationist with faced when do to

—

really defeated. As scholars and 4 “

‘Learning from’ requires ‘Learning — that that is, as able - - - thoughscientists have done best their to equip participant- their what the contract has specifiedas “deliverables.”The might entity wellfail, even familiar date their workmanship. then, And on the other side, they must surrender their vali to battles epistemic in enoughengagement now, hereand the including in comparison a as thoroughly laborreliable of solidifying participant painstaking the is there side, one the On disjunction. this in work must scientists contract Canny market. the in but nature, vanished) (anow in not and future, unknowable uncertain an against present the sets that one out, played is disjunction temporal of sort different completely a science, privatized a in extra optional modern. been always and never both has science so disjunction, the not recognized and recognized both paradoxically, always, has scientist canny The nature. in there already always entity an and emergent presently a entity between disjunction temporal ahave and transcendence are ascribed to it in the process of epistemic contest. Here we the entity is stripped of all signs of its “birth” in the here and now, as universality justification made by the positivist Hans ReichenbachHans in made theby positivist justification junction no doubt relates to the older contrast between contexts of discovery and ing.” or weep for rejoicing either no occasion is There him. no longer know will that appearing between two others, a classical past that never knew him, and a future ideais that man a face thesand in between tides: drawn two he is a composition suggests we face the death of man (and nature): “We must take quite seriously the Foucault, friend his following Deleuze, waythat same the in someequanimity, ofwith science death the face enableto might us ofpractices creativity certing butdivergent the discon and practices also to locating locate them. Recognizing tices. I suggest that we not only need to recognize what is involved in generative Continuum, Continuum, 5 and the backward- the and work ontic of translation focused the between disjunction temporal ofmuch the science. embedded in disjunctions divergences?My we tosuggestion need isbegin, that, to look into temporal the positive such nurture howto and search to Butwhere come. to is what in cised exer is power which by practices the understand to position better a in are we Knowledge in a Acid,” of Bath and Whitehead Lactic Pasteur 6 . .

Bruno Latour, “Do Scientific Objects Have a History?: Have aHistory?: Objects Latour, “Do Scientific Bruno Gilles Deleuze, Deleuze, Gilles 5 Understanding the specific place and circumstances of our looming defeat, defeat, looming our of circumstances and place specific the Understanding As science becomes a service industry and the good of truth becomes an an becomes truth of good the and industry service a becomes science As Still, Stengers is going in the right direction in identifying divergent prac divergent identifying in direction right the in going is Stengers Still, Immersing Pasteur and Whitehead in a bath of lactic acid, Latour makes makes acid,Latour oflactic bath a in Whitehead and Pasteur Immersing

— 5 . 1 199 (

their participant- 1999 9 ), ), ): ): Foucault 74 76 . – looking epistemic work of purification in science. in purification ofwork epistemic looking 91 , trans. Sean Hand (London: (London: Hand Sean trans. , , at 76 . comparison Common Common

—

to the venture capitalist, handing over 1 diction 7 . , www.ditext.com/reichenbach/reich-

Hans Reichenbach, “Meaning,” in in “Meaning,” Reichenbach, Hans (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938 Press, Chicago of University (Chicago: 1938 . 7 In Latour’s story, comparisonfor 6 The dis Experience and Pre and Experience c.html. ------), chap. ), chap.

- Verran • Response to Stengers 69 Common Knowledge 70 wheremoney and profit instead.rule This development is not happya one clout, no has orderepistemology where sociotechnical a in future uncertain an cause for dancing for cause in the here and now. here and the in participant- their connect to faith good in and wittingly struggled they as divergentAborigines and byscientists practices life. Temporal disjunction also characterized the invention (albeit of minimalist) ephemeral an had entity novel this Indeed, state. colonial a of classrooms the in future uncertain an faced divergences his in emerged that entity enumerated the But practices. official from diverging here/nowYoruba by ofhis classroom he remadethe curriculum, school of acolonizing then/there the complyto with future. uncertain an against set is present It was in just such a temporal disjunction that Mr. Ojo worked. Refusing worked.Mr.Ojo Refusing that disjunction temporal a such just in Itwas

—

yet the temporal disjunction is there, just the same. The The same. the just there, is disjunction temporal the yet comparisons enough to expand trust trust enough expand to comparisons

—

no Symposium: Comparative Relativism

RATS, ELEPHANTS, AND BEES AS MATTERS OF CONCERN

Steven D. Brown

Not all rats are suitable for conditioning experiments. “White” or albino rats are the best candidates for this kind of task, being relatively easy to handle. Most popular is the “Wistar” strain, originally introduced to the University of Chicago by the neuropathologist Adolf Meyer and subsequently bred by the physiolo- gist Henry Donaldson. Over half of all laboratory rat strains are descendants of Donaldson’s original colony.1 The Wistar rat is a potent and controversial symbol for psychology. As the title of R. V. Guthrie’s historical analysis of racial bias in the discipline has it, even the rat was white.2 The rat of psychological research is most commonly represented in the form of a single animal traversing a maze. It is this scene that has stood for a natural science of social behavior for generations of psychologists. Yet it is difficult to think of any image further removed from communal human life than this bizarre spectacle. “These animals,” Kurt Dan- ziger observes, “represent individuals even more drastically thrown on their own resources than the lone gunmen of the mythical Wild West.”3

1. F. J. Wertz, “Of Rats and Psychologists: A Study in the 3. Kurt Danziger, Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found History and Meaning of Science,” Theory and Psychology Its Language (London: Sage, 1997), 99. 4.2 (1994): 165 – 97.

2. R. V. Guthrie, Even the Rat Was White: A Historical View of Psychology, 2nd ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998).

71 4 . Common Knowledge 72 Wertz, “Of Rats and Psychologists,” Psychologists,” and Rats “Of Wertz, a paradigm in Kuhn’s sense and, hence, collective matters of concern power to speak in their name.” their in speak to power of the power to confer on things the power of conferring on the experimenter the experiments) with the decisive formulation that what is at stake is “the invention lessattempt to (in separate debates from construction reality about of status the Stengers’s in “inventions” that offer new of articulations the real is one of the principal issues game.” “collective a by bound be to readiness greater a but rather ences” sci “paradigmatic the workin at rationality of form superior a not this in sees account.” To spare once again the blushes of social scientists into diction “contrasted standpoints” by “exploring of possibility the a coherent sought to his notion with describe of paradigm the tables are turned. The rats play the tune and a large group of humans follow.” of group a humans and large tune play the The rats turned. tables are the “Nowpsychology: behavioral dismiss to tale Browning’sPiedPiperHamlin of then- to the Wistar as objects of study. The laughter began as early as as early as began laughter The study. of objects as Wistar the to dismissing behavioral psychology as misguided or as blinded by its commitment of the former. In this case, the real reductionism comes from our ready “prey” becomes laughter latter the the a such way that in to another or “rationality” in tivity” parison. Reductionism is what when occurs one practice applies a form of “objec com unsustainable an of or analogy false of matter a simply not is reductionism degree of reductionism as to be entirely laughable. And yet,dismiss theas comparison Stengers of the Wistarmakes rat clear,with the human as involving such a high thesesorts of foundational epistemic practice seriously. We might be tempted to nity is constituted around a “collective concern” “collective a around constituted is nity commu a When interpretation. alternative an suggests Stengers elephants, the men and blind parable of the the Invoking translation. and comparison to spur a is paradigms between breakdown” “communication Kuhn for that reminded again are challenged, is practice own their whenever “incommensurability” to who scientists have sought solace in Kuhn’s work, as though it a authorized retreat Social science. of philosophy within tradition normative a in follows workher tionship of critic and object of criticism. In this article, she reminds us again that predator/prey the rela from markedly differs of that science image an described lead. the take to Wistar the allowed unwittingly it has since general, in chology Behavioral psychology is the prey that must be sacrificed forthe ofsurvival psy president of Psychological the American Association, Frank Beach, inverted The invention of such games and their materialization in “events” and and “events” in materialization their and games such of invention The IsabelleStengers’s meditation matteroncomparisonofa concern as takes Over the course of her work of the past twenty years, Stengers has patiently The Invention of Modern Science Modern of Invention The 179 . 5 Galileo and classical chemistry are once again her 5 Press, Press, Minnesota of University (Minneapolis: W. Smith Daniel . Isabelle Stengers, Stengers, Isabelle 200 0 . There she cuts through the point the through cuts she There . ), ), 88 — . then then it contra seeks to organize

— The Invention of Modern Science of Modern The Invention

which indeed is what Kuhn whatKuhn is indeed which

—

who famously lack 1950

— , when the the when ,

Stengers , trans. ------4 ized science has been the default mode of operation for natural scientists (and scientists natural for operation of mode default the been has science ized industrial that given Stengers’son pronouncement part, broughtabout this has “state of exception” that is now about to disappear. One cannot but wonder what piece is to reassess the image of science through her running previous works as a of defeat.” Surely among the most remarkable moves that Stengers her in makes little little better for the academy in general tive coherent account. The economics of patenting see look to will Things that. solicit the interests of others,constituted a collec no differences further within nobeno toscience,more games, subsumes there will efforts Oncecapital fully past.” the of thing “a games collective make claims, she will, which interests,” industrial competing by “mobilized science a of specter the invokes Stengers piece, symposium main her of section apocalyptic an In itself. science mative science. of normative it that thoughtprivilege itits exclusion through had table high earned the from moveable blockages then be systematically observed. It was a variant of the puzzle box to create different ways of imprisoning Wistar rats, whose escape attempts could Thebox couldThorndike. altered“puzzlebebyEdward the box”devised with was conferring the power of comparison in his lab. He had begun experimenting the Psychical Development of the White Rat,” Watson implicitly ofsuggested whoStudy Experimental An Education: “Animal thesis, doctoral his of title the departed. comparison which from terms conceptual original the whichobjects be seen can to exert preferencesown their that exceed and effects anticipating it. otherIn words, continuous comparison sets up aof kind game in had they understanding of achieved, since kind the conceptual definitionthat the it confirmed did nottheir warrant explain or justify to unable are scientists that of making continuous comparisons, with an agency of their own. The outcome is touchstones; here she observes scientists endow their objects, through the process plane,or tables of chemical affinities of practices” rejection their of experiments a point of honor. Stengers’s notion of “ecology an “elephant.” its own has psychology do not Itscritics have one andso have made Behavioral practice. own waytheir to any in not does speak that irrelevance an itas view who critics, their of operations the itdoes than matters) comparison whom (for scientists of games” “collective the resembles better experiment of consequences of these moves, then it must possess a “cognitive map.” kind This sequencea rat responseand the maze of rat the within appears to anticipate the in conducted were experiments foundational ioral psychology by the nascent cognitive psychology of Edward Tolman, whose That exclusion may soon be repeated, but this time at the heart of nor of heart the at time this but repeated, be soon may exclusion That Behavioral psychology lacked a Galileo. It made do with J. Watson.B. It made do with In Galileo. lackeda psychology Behavioral

—

organized around “elephants” such as the puzzle box, the inclined — that that proved decisive in the supposed repudiation of behav

—

appearsto rob science social critical of a

“we belong now to worlds on the brink 1948 . If blockages are moved in in moved are blockages If .

—

a maze with - - - -

Brown • Response to Stengers 73 1989 theand Beginnings ofBehaviorism 6 . Common Knowledge 74 K. W. Buckley, K. ). shown by acids in in acids by shown comparisonswith Bergson that has affinities (seehis account theof “judgment” tive world.” Here Stengers draws upon ethological an account of categories and respec its with dealing for equipment animal’s any of part important an is son and comments: so “WeCompari probably are are comparativists, animals. all all comparison”? “perfect of the tion. Is Stengers’s accusation of “foul play” itself to be disallowed by the demands self- positive uncritical, of entirely consisted that actors between “argument” an to akin be would force.” This “full in appear to efforts their than other anything worthiness to enter into comparison by refusing to make the outcome depend on their display parties opposing which in game ofcollective newkind ofa rather but differences, and similarities of play a of not consist would It comparison.” “perfect towhat would amount Péguy,on quietly.sheimagines go to Drawing Wistar). of the “father” Meyer, the Adolf (by Hopkins Johns from expulsion Watson found that a career in wasindustry not entirely unbearable following his close scrutiny that Stengers has paid in the past to Galileo or Lavoisier? Even J. B. too has characteristics, procedures, and modes of invention that are worthy of the science now. somefortime industrialized scientists) Surely social many indeed nature,” attempts nature,” made attempts to ofovercome the nature- the limitations “multi like terms deploying atlength, dismisses and comparisons” “unfair calls follow, that arguments the Stengers rapidly very switches to a series of what she Yet in observes. Stengers operation, interesting” “very and demanding” “very a way. . .”). would Neither attempt position the of to other: undermine party the each party to eachappearforce.” party in “full We must learn from pigs as they apply their allowing means concern of matters as relations tangled these rendering in to aspire to bar the as comparison” Totornadoes.” “perfect and the pigs, set nos, “nature” called inelegantly is what up make who actors of plurality isit a matter. cognitive Comparison is basis the of relations between diverse the become may who others of behavior the yousuch. render may one’s alternatively, who, or prey understanding for strategy ecological an itbecomes rather reason. athan The matter“art of of comparison” artfulness is tick, whose universe is defined by justthree possible modes of comparison),then in their worldly engagements (think here of Deleuze’s discussion of Von Uexkull’s Spinoza). If comparison of is part the “equipment” beingsdraw upon that living Mechanical John Man: Broadus Watson assertions (“I believe . . . ,” “From my perspective . . . ,” “Looked at in this ,”. this . . ,”at . in . .“Looked believe (“I “From perspective my assertions In the final sections of her piece, Stengers comes full circle with her opening opening her with circle full comes Stengers piece, her of sections final the In Stengers refuses style, pugnacious is nottypically In though. quite lost, All Comparison is ultimately not the preserve of reason, nor indeed in essence (New York: Guilford, York:Guilford, (New Matter and Memory and Matter ) and Deleuze (especially in his work on work his in (especially Deleuze and ) culture opposi culture — “neutri 6 - - - - - more precise to say that there is a loop formed ofrats- loop formed a is there that say to more precise be would it perhaps Or experimenters. attentive be to students condition who feels attest can certainly tothat this be the case. It is the highly experienced rats I rats, Wistar of conditioning operant included training undergraduate whose that it is the rats who are therunning experiment has some jokeold purchase.The comparison.” As “perfect someone the to fundamental are learning of modes trailer.” Bidirectional every into transformer “every tornado’s smashing the in perhaps even, as in Neko Case’s lyrics, learn to feel the love and longing expressed we must required.experiencecomparativeEqually the powers of and neutrinos (Oxford: Berghahn, Berghahn, (Oxford: Anthropology American.” and face.” your spitin to even and answer, to refuse or agree to interest, your of relevance the which we seek to compare: you “Those must address be empowered to evaluate concludes, that are orStengers answerable resistance only rejection experiencing through from that questions, are These how?” and affected, be, will or is, etho- poses that one event,” . . . “ecological an is Symbiosis nature. precarious and precious their contingency, their emphasizes and orchid of lines The wasp are folded back aboutinto one wasp. such relations another. Stengers’s thinking the of territory and universe affective the of part becomes orchid the of doing so in But part apparatus. becomes then reproductive orchid’s the wasp The attention. its attracting wasp, the of figure Wistar Wistar rat, marooned in a maze or trapped in a puzzle box, than the sight of bees isolated the from labor,couldfurther be complex and relations. Nothing social morepromising is parison com The atlookbees. instead world, might one animal the in behavior human symbiosis is of the orchid and the wasp. experimentation ofepistemic form exemplary Guattari and Deleuze that image The interests.” “heterogeneous between relations to way ator/preygive of comparison. modes of intersecting comparative apparatus to sorting and organizing humans. An An humans. organizing and to sorting apparatus comparative phy? 7 actors independent two between not is comparison The other. the in implied already is of rat- ofgenerations new production the .

Isabelle Stengers, “Experimenting with with “Experimenting Stengers, Isabelle ” in in ” 1931 Karl Bühler, president of the German Psychological Society between 1929 between Society Psychological German the of president Bühler, Karl To open oneself education is to to animal seek Relations of symbiosis. pred

— Deleuzian Intersections in Science, Technology, and

, once described the passion for experimenting on as “really the Wistar human human and rat , ed. Casper Bruun Jensen and Kjetil Rödje 8 He suggested that, if one wanted to find a suitable analogue for for analogue suitable a find to wanted one if that, suggested He 2009 ).

—

but between two hybrids who embody a whole history — — bees have something like a language, a division of division a language, a like something have bees who have themselves been objects of Stengers’sof objects been themselves have who What is Philoso is What 7 observers, where something of the one of the where something observers, The orchid transforms itself itself transforms orchid The - — 8 . provide us for thinking about thinking for us provide See Danziger, Danziger, See ecological questions: “Who “Who questions: ecological as- educators assisting in in educatorsassisting Naming the Mind the Naming animal education animal into the the into . is is - -

Brown • Response to Stengers 75 out Bees 9 . Common Knowledge 76 Alison Benjamin and Brian McCallum, McCallum, Brian and Benjamin Alison (London: Guardian Books, 2008 Books, Guardian (London: is now closed. The bees or are dying disappearing. make the bee a matter of concern. As we have recently discovered, that possibility wonder what kind of behavioral psychology might have emerged had it chosen to We only goals. can collective achieve to together communicating and working a world without bees a world in metaphorically and literally live ). A World With World A - 9 The fate of psychology is to . Symposium: Comparative Relativism

Hopeful comparisons on the brink of the grave

Brit Ross Winthereik

In “Comparison as a Matter of Concern,” Isabelle Stengers conjures for us one of the concerns that matter most to her. She argues that tight relations between academia and industry do deathly harm to comparative science, as they cut off the “collective game” in which colleagues are welcome to object. Objecting to one another’s research and its results will soon be a thing of the past. At the heart of this gloomy picture we find a battle between comparisons: imposed comparisons, where extraneous, irrelevant criteria are laid down, and active, interested comparisons, where rapport is established between the scientist and the phenomenon she studies. Though Stengers notes that it is “always possible to speak of practices as flexibly transforming themselves,” her concern is that the connection of science and industry will not be transformative of the sciences but, rather, fatal to them. What rendered scientific practices distinct from — divergent from — other practices is at stake.1

1. During the conference out of which this symposium ers: “No transformation — death!” Then she added quietly emerged, Stengers was invited by a student in the audi- but no less fiercely: “I’m a Darwinist; species don’t trans- ence (Birgitte Gorm Hansen of Copenhagen Business form, they die.” What a splendid outburst at a conference School) to reflect upon whether the connection between hosted by an institution, the IT University of Copenha- science and industry might bring about a transforma- gen, that was established to explore and exploit the poten- tion of science in some positive sense. To which Stengers tials of science in the service of industry! replied, her mouth close to the microphone, voice echoing throughout an auditorium packed with hopeful research- Common Knowledge 17:1 DOI 10.1215/0961754X-2010-038 © 2011 by Duke University Press

77 2 September September School, Business Copenhagen Uncertainty,” “Organizing lecture, (public UK” the TaleA from Proposal: Research . Common Knowledge 78 Marilyn Strathern, “Hope, Uncertainty, and the the and Uncertainty, “Hope, Strathern, Marilyn 1 , 2009 tive synergy” and argued that it was biased against “intellectual elaboration.” “intellectual against biased was it that argued and synergy” tive science- of case particular a diagnosed Strathern lecture, recent a During Strathern. lyn point, Stengers On interested comparison. is this active, in agreement Mari with hinders that practice individual each in flexibility a introduce practices among “equivalency” producing “mechanisms” that is universities at practices edge knowl the on economy knowledge the of influence the about vigorously most listen acquiescently to the death of knell good science? Stengers What opposes science- doneaboutthe be can what question: tant impor this into life new breathes science good of death the for responsible is to herself. Herwork the knowledge economy that claim ofa kind transformation death of the weakest argument. weakest of the death of elephantthe as constitution the a object shared of concern ought to lead to the over arguing and exploring howabout but elephant the of aspects mensurable the and incom eliciting elephant about not is it the wrong: of Stengers, to according is, parable men blind The three labs.” their in “dance scientists makes what is stakeholders. holds evance Scientific nopromiserelevanceto industrial or little because pay they due attention to relevance. Yet, Stengers scientific argues, rel what than is obvious, find irrelevant. Scientists in more nature scientifically are that criteria and questions with engage to compelled are industry with nership open. remains assessed be should collaboration of the impact actual of how the the question ences.”discussion, But intellectual without any space for substantial stakeholder possible every for value yield to supposed is it as argues, Strathern promise, perpetual a by characterized is Science- - n o s i r a p m o c abouttalks as “rapport.” Being able to establish rapport is a significant feature of pen between scientists and their objects of study. It process is this that Stengers hap can togetherness real contrast, In dead. stone therefore, are, science good and comparisons interested economy,active, knowledge a in possible; is posal “real Whiteheadian a pro No “cosmopolitical” which arise. can in industry way and science no between is togetherness” there incommensurable; are industry by to it. by betray required The science comparisons demanded and the comparisons epistemic the core of scientific the work, collaborationbecause scientists brings ). Iwould thatStengers, deathargue the of proclaiming in science, is trying ToStengers both and Strathern,science- part into entering scientists that out points Stengers vein, same the In industry collaboration, which is collaboration, a of trademark the knowledge economy,industry industry collaboration as an instance of what she termed “specula termed she what of instance an as collaboration industry - s a . t n e v e

—

scientists, industry, and “wider audi “wider and industry, scientists, industry “partnerships” threaten industry industry relation other than than other relation industry ------2

expressed use the of in tools experimental that enable comparisons. “due attention,” as through being into comes butprimarily dimension affective between scientists and on the nature whose has an behalf Mutuality speak. they keyto addition, anygood experiment. In Stengers on a mutuality radical insists surement devices, nature, and other members of the scientific community. scientific ofthe members other and nature, devices, surement mea scientists, among on go processes authorization and mutuality bowl, food a work) Despret’s (in or example) (Stengers’s plane inclined Galileo’s like devices tists, of the experimental subjects and objects, and of the experimental design and technology. Stengers processes and Despret see transformative of science studies in scholars Despret have inspired her and Vinciane colleague 3 are engaged in studying knowledge production. knowledge studying in engaged are (besides objectivist comparison) should be a matter of concern to those ofare there us who comparing of ways other what out finding involved, scientists the to of concern matter a is comparison (aSince relativized) comparisons. particular taneouslysensitize their users to thephenomena at hand and to theworkings of actvery of comparing. matters What to her is how experimental devices simul and in focusing only on the generative potential of comparing, she relativizes the forabsolutecomparison scales defining in uninterested utterly being in that, is point to crucial the about make what Stengers’s characterizes matter of concern processes. of these part a form positions and of arguments deaths the www.bruno- .html (accessed January 13 January (accessed .html de concepts et libre sauvage création Stengers’s of Isabelle A Review see the work ofStengers the see we if What actors? industrial for matter that concerns and practices the from practices scientific separate and disconnect strategically to devices lack entists of another option mean that science is threatened? Still, in my view,my wein should Still, threatened? science is that mean option ofanother notembracing theknowledge economy are no longer options. But does thelack and partners, with collaboration in relevant scientifically is what defining not in the knowledge economy. formulated relevance Not entering imposed the into by partnerships with unpolluted industrial are actors, that found be may practices knowledge, I, Stengers, like spacesin haveidentifying where difficulty scientific academic for demands industrial by shaped thoroughly been has career whose academic an As economy’sofdiscomfort? knowledge zones the whoenter into scientists for companions become offers she that science good of examples the if economy? What knowledge the in science for integrity and in trust creating . See also Bruno Latour, “What is Given in Experience?: is in Given Experience?: Latour, “What Bruno See also Through their attention to what constitutes a good experiment, Stengers experiment, good a attentionwhatto constitutes their Through Now, what if science- perhaps Relativism,” “Comparative titled symposium a of context the In latour.fr/articles/article/ , 201 0 Penser avec Whitehead: Une Une Whitehead: avec Penser ” (Paris: Gallimard, Gallimard, ” (Paris:

— ).

industry partnerships sciencekill only because sci her active, interested comparisons interested heractive, 93 – S R E G N E T S 2002 ), ),

2006 Latour and Peter Weibel Democracy of (Cambridge, Press, MIT MA: Atmospheres Public: Things Making 4 .

Vinciane Despret, “Sheep Do Have Opinions,” in in Opinions,” Have Do “Sheep Despret, Vinciane ), ), 360 – 70 .

—

— as a device for device a as 3 of the scien Employing 4 And And

—

as - - - - , ed. Bruno , ed. Bruno

Winthereik • Response to Stengers 79 5 206 Press, Michigan of University Arbor: (Ann Riles Knowledge Modern of Artifacts Documents: . Common Knowledge 80 Hirokazu Miyazaki, “Documenting the Present,” in in Present,” the “Documenting Miyazaki, Hirokazu – 25 . despair, I want to draw on the hopefulness in a Fijian mortuary exchange exchange mortuary Fijian a Miyazaki. Hirokazu in by anthropologist the described hopefulness the on draw to want I despair, across andtime space. To make clearer my sense of what is hopeful in Stengers’s kin connect that practices social inspires Death beginnings. new brings death economy. knowledge the within from created be can comparison interested for spaces new that hope the creates and hype eradicates that way a in read be may colleagues work and ofStengers knowledge economy, but rather to find a the it.Thus,way within ofmaneuvering practices andindustrial scientific take seriously Stengers’s position that there are fundamental differences between how to deal with the end point of a practice anthropologically. ofpractice a end point the with howdeal to a practice apprehension of the limits of knowledge about the market marks the end point of edge, the traders from using even refrain simple strategies. trading The traders’ knowl superior be to took they what abandoned behavior. Having market stock traders used to be eager to learn the newest mathematical models for predicting Together Riles. andanthropologist the Annelise aboutwrite they how Japanese ambition (to understand an end point) is at the heart of a joint work by Miyazaki understanding how the end point of death is experienced by the Fijians. A similar generate? economy knowledge the might performances hopeful other what curious: audienceher makes it that in hopeful is formance science bespeaks appear not does such dead, is science to be the case. What good she says is not that convincing, is because the says way she stands by Stengers what if Even ence. of death. face the in life end point) it makes possible, Miyazaki’s in account, for the Fijians to go on with (as exchange eventan and an possible. The mortuary anticipation hopeful makes tion between creating and completing a moment the installs lists of waiting that at hope The the disjunc is time. that temporal to most informants his important the capturing for tools as function ritual mortuary Fijian a in participants the among exchanged gifts the document that lists how shows He present. ritual the lenge for which seeks Miyazaki a solution is how to access the here and now of regards as an end point (namely, the demise of active, interested comparisons), interested active, of (namely, point enddemise an the as regards as Stengers dislikes how the notion of “transformation” is used to define what she Death and hope can be closely intertwined, though not in the sense that that sense the notin though intertwined, closely be can hope and Death In Miyazaki’s work, the performativity of the lists becomes his entry into entry becomes his oflists the performativity work, the Miyazaki’s In sci for up stands she science, good of death the declares Stengers When

—

and the Miyazaki- — even performs , ed. Annelise Annelise ed. , 2006 Riles Riles article, “Failure as an Endpoint,” reflects on ), ), — — Ethics as Anthropological Problems Anthropological as Ethics in Endpoint,” 6 phen J. Collier (Malden, MA: Blackwell, Blackwell, MA: (Malden, J. Collier phen not, not, however, in order to find away out ofthe .

a living, vigorous practice. Her practice. a vigorous situated per living, Hirokazu Miyazaki and Annelise Riles, “Failure as an an as “Failure Riles, Annelise and Miyazaki Hirokazu Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and 5 The anthropological chal anthropological The , ed. Aihwa Ong and Ste and Ong Aihwa , ed. 6 In the sameIn way 2005 ), ), 320 – 31 . ------as as a material- in the knowledge economy. Such an approach might lead to studies of partnership science? I would opt for an approach that looks for active, interested comparisons ofdecay ofthe study good ethnographic imply way” an endpointasustained in way.” sustained a “in points end on focus should traders, stock like gists, anthropolo points, starting new into points end turning of instead that, argue They “emergence,”“assemblage.”of “complexity,” and terms in described are and Miyazaki Riles are critical of the way that end points of knowledge practices science science is dead into new an immediately beginning moment present the with staying of way dying. or dead as depicts Stengers that science of the point end the way encounters,how are they shared or not, may be one way of facing a in sustained specific in do objects the what objects, these craft that practices the about ing to achieve something that may be comparable to Stengers’s “rapport.”of Know reference, flow charts, and collaborative reports. Such objects are designed“cherished objects” of the knowledge economy, such as research proposals, terms and relativized comparisons. and relativized would require, however, that we take seriously Stengers’s concern for unimposed economy. knowledge It the by dug grave the of brink the on sitting are we that toface end way”would pointsa “in sustained not requireto us accept claim the valued? and managed, handled, and how objects formake What are (in)commensurability, remain. they practices industrial and scientific between gaps that ensure objects other while practices I am suggesting would also entail close attention to how objectsparticular bridge often as projects with short time frames, might be studied as well. The approach for collaborative projects. The way science- used designed and objectswork with intellectual for used solitary designedand ablescience is crushed. Such may studies compare practices and objects that are vulner a which under monolith powerful a than other something as industry Returning to science and the knowledge economy: would “knowing the the “knowing would economy: knowledge the and science to Returning Studying the “partnership” objects ofscience- objects “partnership” the Studying On a final note,aOn final I should guideddesire an that ethnographic by add being semiotic practice, focusing on the particular workout carried by on the the particular focusing practice, semiotic — industry partnerships are organized, industry of not turning the claim that good good that claim the turning not of — industry relations is both a both is relations industry and and a way of understanding - - -

Winthereik • Response to Stengers 81 Symposium: Comparative Relativism

SCIENCES WERE NEVER “GOOD”

Isabelle Stengers

The contributions made to this discussion by Wistar rats, Mr. Ojo, and Austra- lian Aborigines, along with their scientists, are considerable. Beyond the case that each makes against unilaterally imposed relations, their presence is important, because they help in disentangling my proposition from what can be perceived as privileging the kind of achievement that is central to the experimental sciences. The importance I gave to the case of the experimental sciences was meant to renew their role as the starting point for thinking about science “in general.” I wished to uphold the singularity of their achievement and collective game (which Helen Verran characterizes as the “painstaking labor of solidifying comparison as a thoroughly reliable participant”) in order to call for a pluralization of sciences. I proposed thinking about the sciences in terms of the contrasting demands bearing on such a “participant” (nonunilaterally imposed) comparison. For instance, I am not sure that all scientific achievements lend themselves to solidification, while I would think that the collective dimension belongs to sciences as such. But this collective dimension should then be reduced to very generic terms: a science exists when its practitioners are interested in each other’s work, learn from each other, refer to each other. Any science must then include “reporting home” (rather than “going native”), but the definition of what is to be reported has nothing general about it and depends on how the collective achievement is defined.

82 value to what they know and feel. The Pandora’s box is open, and safety has flown feeling it because they have already been deprived of the possibility of attributing avoid people mutely “feeling insulted,” or “beingactually insulted” without even only felt insulted but publicized their outrage. The question is now open: how to impressed by “science” the of those who claimed to them characterize address asthey to else.anybody But some physicists, were scientists, mainly not of sciences.hadquestion scientists addressed to same kinds scientists Social the social the of culpa felix the as takes he which episode, wars” “science unhappy the during learned Latour that lesson the also is This questions. insulting or sciences, they depend upon an increasing recalcitrance about accepting irrelevant human the in achievements the Whatever empowerment. of question political the from disentangled generically be cannot sciences” “human of question the de Castro. leads to Viveiros that trajectory learning of the source such,were they cause the of some of those ethographers “going native,” and the As ethnographers. many doubtin nagging inspire ableto was imposed powers and culture Divide” “Great the nature up mix desperately calls who others all and Latour science have who “we” between Bruno what of side one to refer (I beliefs of terms science,lack contrast to in somerecalcitrance of we those havein characterized serve they when Humans, questions. without performs object the while tation interpre relevant the about hesitating learning, wondering, are scientists metry: labdissym reproduce that performances orproduce questions say) to answer to a scientificam sadin are (I soonlab, as they as humans, agree map.contrast, In cognitive their to witnesses as served happily have rats opportunity, the Given scientists. those with comparison in enjoyprivilege a “rat scientists” because is it comparisons,” “unfair of series a to turned I “humans,” other with dealing more disgusting. become knowledge” of objective “rule the by inspired questions while challenging, more and interesting more becomes “object” the as I sciences; tal in cases, these would propose, “progress” that means what is defined experimen relevance with is a concern, there matter kinship remains of crucial oftrust, their map’s reconfigurations, ofthe “personality” of eachrat? Wherever for them. And the “them” itself may be problematic relate to the situation? relevance Learning then what entails learning is relevant they Howdo “us”? map they Howdo view? of point their from matters What surements. But if rats possess a “cognitive map,” mea the questionunilateral ergonomic with of busy was relevance industry isthe if open.industry, in career of his adventure the and knowledge” objective relevant of relations. rule I am “the not very surprised that between J. B. Watson was not unhappy dissymmetry with the But so many powers depend and feed upon the knowledge/belief divide that scientists addressing when remarks, Brown Steven as if, Correlatively, Moreover, in speaking of an achievement as an event, I wished to emphasize

). The recalcitrance they developed about the regime that colonizing

—

what of past experience, of . They not - - - -

Stengers • Final Comments 83 Common Knowledge 84 our lack of recalcitrance destroyed. been have that practices tific) own way of divergence. we And may also feel a closeness other with (nonscien process of being destroyed, what each special strength of our practice was and its the in whatwithout is rivalry, tell to others, try whendefines mayeachit, us of defeat creates a time for togetherness, for “perfect” comparison as Charles Péguy evaluation despite us all, that insults of the plurality our practices. Proclaiming lacked recalcitrance, the capacity tosay no capacity the lackedrecalcitrance, has generally world academic that an “we,” aboutto referencea spoke I in it is If ence, and as generally denouncing alliances with industry or even applied science. of death “good” the heardforetelling I was as failed. science, or “normative” sci misunderstanding. or about wolves, unfairness the or complaining with howling cynicism, against protection a as atserves leastexploredbut need whoseconsequences be that to a situation, recognizing defeat, as Péguy’s example shows, occasions a standpoint romantic past. And the a same to is now true for belongs many but scientists of philosopher my a generation. into me In such turned what on backs their turn must they realize soon will students my that know I because defeated, am I but ashamed to imagine what kind of philosopher I would have been. Yes, I am alive; regime,this either I would never have got a job university or else, if I had, I am it destroying finish will evaluation of the authority the sciences) and that the implementation of ofthe rule objective (and ing” has already manybeen off in countries by killed theattempt to mimic a philosopher, and a philosopher who considers that her practice is “just surviv alive.still About that last point, let me brieflyanswer that Iam not a scientist but announcement that “we” were defeated. I was even taken as proof that science is heard. they but endeavored“deathofcern science” tothe knell that toproposealternatives con world. of academic the accepted our contributor Each destruction dictable pre the and economy knowledge the of description my to reaction vivid their of publics). emergence the on (see Dewey them produce to political, usually event, an on depend must scientists protagonists, Unablerecalcitrant “prepare” to scientists. ofpower the notin is recalcitrance for learning relevant, knowledge- forlearning “achievement” as be recognized known in its event political the dimension. that Recalcitrance is demands required it case this in that convinced am I science, human nonpredatory a for hope the hope, is box the in remains what away.If This is what ecology ofThis the is about: practices to words give to defeat, our But who is the “we” that has been defeated? On one point, my article clearly the and style “pugnacious” my between contrast the by amused was I article: my on commentaries three the to common point a now to turn I

— words that free us from nostalgia about our (academic) producing connections, but productionproducing connections, the of

—

at least, as an “academic” practice. Under “academic” practice. an as atleast,

—

to resist a technology of objective toatechnology resist - - - - - his his destroyed,at least sciences when concerned,are experimental iswhat Latour in being is of tion “good” What of amatter fact. as such, as science,it if as existed world. the to dimensions new adding event eachto unification, connectionmaking recalcitrantthem between strengths, an respective particular divergence. Ecology is about ways of life that are recalcitrant competitionfor power and legitimacy, and presenting themselves their through from authority, from disentangled practices of possibility speculative the with world this of nature predatory the contrasts It destroyed. being is worldthat market, while still benefiting from laid”the beenbenefiting eggshaving while market, still “scientifically envi of kind another on depended “gold” as but onthe knots” wouldand hatchout ronment.dependedWhat not on“links value their but constraints, collective demanding with environment, special very a in laid were “eggs” scientific The to the past, as it was indeed the very point of the construct that is being destroyed. knots. and of links crafting the for “alliance”has been broken.have invaded Allies theterritory defined by concern nonautonomy of scientists working in and for industries. What is new is that this complete the on eye blind a turn to autonomy was their for paid they price the the unaccountability that academic scientists claimed for the use of the eggs. And to only metaphorgoldencorresponds eggs” the laid “goose The that state. the on the lookout for so- actor- As recruited. of wekind What science construction. call was always dependent on it the allies from orof specific generalconstruction,” itat category “social the leastavery makes sciences experimental of construction ongoing the differentiates what but destroyed be will “goodthat notscience” is it words, other industry In state. the or with alliances and discipline, the of autonomization of process the described by Latour, four other the aspects mobilization, public representation, practical specificity.And it isalsothe onethat underis threat, in contrastwith its makes that one the science, of aspect an only is It science. “good” not is It address. to attempt they which that and all them between knots and game, the Monsanto files. I am also very doubtful about the possibility that the relations relations the that possibility the about doubtful very also am I files. Monsanto cerned. Secrecy may well prevail now on many occasions. Just to enter try into proposals and at that, all least where biotechnology or nanotechnology are con research by followed path the proposes, Winthereik Ross Brit as out, trace to able be will researchers that sure not am I opportunities. speculative of terms participant,” there is no longer an end point, each point being equally definedin as comparison a reliable labor thoroughly of place solidifying for the “painstaking the trademarkis, carrying of progress and rationality. When there is no longer a Pandora’s Hope I must admit I was very surprised to have been heard foretelling the destruc the foretelling heard been have to surprised very was I admit must I Correlatively, the “temporal disjunction” described by Verran also belongs figure figure network theory made clear, academic scientists were always always were scientists academic clear, made theory network called applications, actively to trying interest industries and 3 . 3 names links and knots, links between colleagues in links and knots, nameslinks

—

that that - - -

Stengers • Final Comments 85 Common Knowledge 86 each of us shall do in order to go on. It is rather how to resist how to rather Itis on. go order to in do shall us of each what not is question My industrial. or scientific whether adventure, an of part insult to what they already suffer: the loss of meaning, pride, the feeling of add to being flexibility of name the in today dying or despairing are souls many too is. knowledge relevant or interesting or reliable for working as just past, of the harassment and burnout. Working “for” an industry is quickly becoming a thing self-or seminaries observe letthem multiply; ethnographers If games. want strategic to or observe a process of instance, decay, for let them go to France satisfaction, Telecom, where shareholders’ suicides with element when compared indifferent a rather sometimes element strategies, an in giving some definition toan “end point” isdisappearing as production hasworkers. becomeof For workers possibility industrial and the these also, scientists both sciences sciences academic both concerns that redefinition destructive of process a characterizes remarks. We never were. However, I would propose that the knowledge economy industry. called is article, my on commentaries the in what, with their scientists. IAlso would insist that the knowledge economy not be confused modified willorganisms resemblethe relations between Verran’sAborigines and between these researchers and scientists research in “partnering” on genetically tion of our worlds. of our tion composi future on the have a bearing may knowledge that time any occurs that “temporalpublic,” to disjunction” “make the into apublic affair, toturn trying when trust can whomthey interlocutors accountable golden,but rather are eggs their that do not toissay they need academicproduced. claiming geese Which who struggle for a sustainable and future want relevant, reliable knowledge to be commentators. It depends on what relation is created between scientists and those future. different a for calling but in past, of the If I am fiercely resisting the “transformationist” temptation, it is because because is temptation, it the “transformationist” fiercely resisting am I If What we are dealing with is not a “powerful monolith,” as Winthereik My hope is slim, so slim that it that seemsto My haveattentionso slim hopethe escaped of isslim, my and industries. The same despair, cynicism, and resentment are invading invading are resentment and cynicism, despair, same The industries. help initiatives organized around around organized helpinitiatives

—

not in the name name the notin - Symposium: Comparative Relativism

BINARY LICENSE

Marilyn Strathern

The textual person is composed by combining distinct relations: although data/theory, spoken/unspoken, originality/analytic precedence, and literal/figurative are kept scrupulously separate, they are also combined according to various kinship-like structures. — Tony Crook, Exchanging Skin1

There was one respect in which my first spell of fieldwork in colonial Mt. Hagen, Papua New Guinea, was like being at home, though I did not phrase it in that way at the time. In the 1950s, I walked about anywhere at home, day or night, with minimal attention to safety or security. Hagen too was peaceful. There were plenty of local disputes and troubles and frustrations, but people had embraced “the law” (and “business”); and a tiny force of expatriate administrative officers could report that the countryside was pacified. There would be no more “tribal fighting.” Hageners were prepared to credit the idea of “government” that came along with law — but I will leave this episode there and return to it in the end.

1. For the “textual person,” see Tony Crook, Exchanging Skin: Anthropological Knowledge, Secrecy, and Bolivip, Papua New Guinea (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the Brit- ish Academy, 2007), 218.

87 levels contains a taxonomic presupposition. a taxonomic contains levels 3 Unit, Research Guinea New Moresby Port in Migrants 2 . . Common Knowledge 88 “Antitaxonomic,” since of course the notion of crossing of of the notion since crossing course “Antitaxonomic,” Marilyn Strathern, Strathern, Marilyn this complexto “add on” to and argument, the I set it aside for another use in paper: too was distinction the Only it. ofout me get to distinction a to resorting was concept of “fractal distinction.” “fractal of concept of social- language the with concerned was I and disciplines, between upholddifferences purportedly that by the same distinction that separates different positions within social anthro social within positions different separates that distinction same the by labeled get anthropology social from biological divide that positions the when of kinds all argumentative splits. Such flow distinctions across levels,as happens ofmethods,comparison, is repeatedorand qualitative quantitative between for such distinctions, with certain as that between positivist and interpretivist styles of changing disciplines in the social sciences social the in disciplines changing of divi a such of enactment the an account with to finish I had been article, trying this to write sion. Before starting article present the open to intended had I since place. in terms the of a segmentary, and in places binary, nomenclature was not consistently keeping Euro- my in toldbut explicitly was I what in not origin their to points comments my call antitaxonomic, given how terms crossed different levels. different crossed how terms given antitaxonomic, call we could origin The otherarea. way the of designating with familiar especially were people if only though districts, council into divided was Hagen and on; so and Chimbu, Enga, Hagen, into divided were Highlands” “The highlands); and (lowlands Guinea New and coastal) and (lowlands Papua into divided was low series ofto Euro- the familiar kind shal a though nesting, a was origin designating of way One “ethnic.” look that distinct areas or places, so a mixture of “tribal” names and “place” from derived were namespopulations of emergedNames forms. two in themselves presented over the country. But I also found I had remarked on how designations of origin all from hailed who city the of residents many the with encounters Hageners’ country name versus the [Papuan] people’s [Papuan] name). the versus name country real- the in as such another,at unit a against counterpoint in be could time, the at wrote I looking for and something else. something and for looking Porttowhatwas Moresby,I Hagen both found city, capital and the rural from one. What I had been writing about was the role of repetition in the ideas ideas the in repetition roleof the was about writing been had I What one. As I As looked back on my work of the Recently, I returned to an account I had written in the the in written had I account an to returned Recently,I American, social- American, No Money on Our Skins: Hagen Hagen Skins: Our on Money No , Bulletin no. no. Bulletin , 1975 case example of conflict between “New Guinea” and “Goilala” and “Goilala” (the Guinea” “New between conflict of example case ). 61 (Port Moresby: Moresby: (Port science gloss. What began by looking like the workings workings the sciencelike by looking began gloss. What scienceAbbott’s I drew heavily on analysis. Andrew 5 In essence,preoccupation the says that Abbott In 2 What I had recalled was a supposition about supposition a was recalled had I What 4 sity of Chicago Press, Press, of Chicago sity 5 . . Andrew Abbott, Abbott, Andrew Strathern, Strathern, American taxonomy.American Papua New Guinea 1970 s, binary division was on my mind, mind, my on was division binary s, , Skins Our on Money No

—

I had reached an impasse and and impasse an reached had I Chaos of Disciplines 4 2001 Perhaps the clumsiness of clumsiness the Perhaps ). 3 A unit at one level, 1970 288 (Chicago: Univer (Chicago: s of migrants ofs migrants . - - - - as as on is objects oftheir for study”) present- contingent ideas onas themselves are their that recall scientists social then and outset. at the surmised had chancing upon a second pertinent issue makes that material more I central than level” ones. It is the distinctions that are the constant. the are that distinctions the It is level” ones. level”applications may of have a distinction quite fromdifferent “higher effects Abbott lays some emphasis on crossovers and thatasymmetries mean that “lower story about Hagen migrants to take just an illustrative paragraph or two privileged understandings deriving from elsewhere. Moreover, I had intended the Euro- of practices knowledge the on focused one earlier the If articles. two the between tionship rela the organize to come also has article present the in elaborate to wanted had I distinction the However, divide. this up opening without science social Euro- with deal to them using in involved comparison the justify to relatedimages to notions of personhood Melanesia, in and it became impossible analytical and indigenous concepts. More specifically, I had been borrowing some could not proceed without being explicit about the relativity of (to put it crudely) the object ofstudy. object the was assuming in the relationship of the language of description or analysisI what evident tomake butneededto steady terms longernohold could certain I make some play the The fact. with point came atof bifurcation the moment when to going was I one,and forthis planning was whatI from paperoff that divide pology. is is not- effect the impossibility, a historical identical, are stances circum the (unless again occupied is occupied already position a that is happens that All formula. a of repetition plans or maps without works that process a from arise they road, a in 7 Press, versity Uni Duke NC: (Durham, Yanagisako Junko Sylvia and on the Disciplining of Anthropology Voice,” Public in Cross- Cultivating Grounds: sen 6 theory and description (or between “data” or “ethnography”) is closely related closely is “data” “ethnography”) (oror between description and theory proliferates at all levels of theory analysis andof description.object the Indeed and the distinction between language between distinction the anthropology, In . .

While such distinctions may appear to lead down forks forks down lead to appear may distinctions such While Forreal- a quite- What for Abbott the sociologist is of intermittent concern (“Every now (“Every concern intermittent of is sociologist the Abbott for What There came a point in the account of fractal distinctions when I had to to had I when distinctions fractal of account the in point a came There 6 The distinctions may or may not precipitate enduring structures, and and structures, notprecipitate may or may enduring distinctions The similar repetitions). similar life example, see Rena Lederman, “Uncho Lederman, Rena see example, life 2005 — they simply arise from the replication or or replication the from arise simply they Unwrapping the Sacred Bundle: Reflections Reflections Bundle: Sacred the Unwrapping ). American social science, this present one has inadvertently inadvertently has one present this science, social American 8 It was this distinction that overcame It distinction was this the impasse. , ed. Daniel Alan Segal Segal Alan Daniel ed. , subfield Accents for a for Accents subfield day anthropologists a issue. constant day anthropologists - - - 8 9 16 July University, Cambridge Humanities, and Sciences, ties Changing,” Centre for Research in Social the Arts, - Humani Humanities/the the “Changing (lecture, ence” Criss- and Crossing Replication? study.” of object the and of description language the between to anthropology, common distinction iterated an on up picks paper panion com The Melanesia. into over spilled comparisons my on me this forced at atthe point which perspectives peting to do out did not so intending start I add that I should a companion. becomes it thus to which 10 . .

– . “I find myself having to divide this paper from another, another, frompaper this to divide having “I myself find

Abbott, Abbott, 18 Abbott, Abbott, , 7 2009 , Disciplines of Chaos , Disciplines of Chaos ). Marilyn Strathern, “Innovation or or “Innovation Strathern, Marilyn American American

9 — I simply 230 15

but my . – - Sci Social in crossing — 31 the pressure of com the pressure . 10 -

- - Strathern • Binary License 89 11 experience for a social anthropologist. a social for experience is a who them familiar or may not may share interlocutors with dealing in practices epistemic own one’s of aware Becoming them. on back reflection its in and constructs of Euro- a as product solely then, generalizable, in its encompassment by Euro- is is generalizable material atsay, point which, Melanesian the put, Otherwise analysis. of order any at encountered Euro- of Euro- to and what to one Melanesian ence between might ascribe .

Common Knowledge 90 I have in mind the regular realization that the differ the that realization regular the mind I in have American discourse, and it is a realization to be be to realization a is it and discourse, American American viewpoints is already the viewpoint viewpoint the already is viewpoints American distinctions can keep terms from dissipating. from terms keep can distinctions can repeatedly bring ourselves back to the point from which we started. In short, be found in one another’s company, to be repeated, at any juncture, later. juncture, atany repeated, company,be another’sone to in found be still can they relation: in them maintains also terms between Fordistinction a ence to “relationship” indicates, it could invite both explorations at ethnography the elucidating into or same time. reflexivity about theorizing into either anthropologist the take could discussed just have I distinction The routes. different down could lead terms analysis between atadistinction which division, which need not take a binary form but very often does. It is the momentmomentof the bifurcation, of point the on instead dwell I interest. of are that tion, the scattering of points that result, the networks that take one everywhere, texts. our compose how in wepowerwriters) attention (anthropologists, tothe draw of bifurcation with these ordistinctions whether they result in pseudoproblems. My point is todispensed long have disciplines other whether with concerned not am I it. to discussed are they as radical more get terms the that finding of instead that, say dare I But provocation. sheera course of is pairing their of unlikeliness the and tion; terms, two brings symposium This Using One’s License form. in binary appears propagation in fractal is example of what I mean: adding the dimensions of inside and outside would work work would outside and inside of dimensions the adding mean: I what of example between inside of and outside. habitualhandiness the the distinction Here is an the previous sentence by the calling latter an “internalist” viewpoint comes from elaborate to urge the perhaps And particularities. own its on contingent thing of comparison and, on the other hand, occupying point athe context from that makesexternalized everythus is what compare to viewpoint a taking hand, one the on between, is distinction This out. laid have organizers the that tion In accounts of proliferating concepts, it is often the endlessness ofrepeti endlessness the often it is concepts, ofproliferating accounts In — American epistemology American apart morepushed American American

— — -

they will be held together by the very distinc very the by held together be will they 12 66 Equation,” edge writings - Social/Knowl Jiménez’s the (e.g.,“Managing Corsín proportionality on Alberto by here influenced been I have term. other the broughtis with relation to its back (the concept- or the other, the thinker the distinction of side one to is adherence adamant or exploratory ever . – 90 A distinction sets up a dynamic of oscillation, so how of oscillation, up sets a dynamic A distinction comparison ). 12 When we see them doing so, what Cambridge Anthropology Cambridge and and relativism — or, as the refer the or, as , into conjunc into ,

28 . 3 [ 2008 11 We We user) user) / 9 ]: ]: ------

inside the brought in just I as dimension, different a from brought in being by siteor (either at same some of replication other by the or lead distinctions to other tain con easily distinctions that is science, social in specifically practices, knowledge compared. be can terms such that difficulty some with only it is that viewpoint ticular methodologies in a social anthropology curriculum. anthropology a social in methodologies ticular par of merits the or university the in humanities the of place the on is athand a choice of grounds tried and thus traditional distinctions, such as interested Abbott and Rena Leder Rena and Abbott interested as such up ones. newly invented or throw man, distinctions, traditional thus and tried ofwell- stock a on call either movecan epistemology, binary a this together.In relationship between themselves, so concepts previouslya up set unrelatedcan another, one can to be foreign brought or anonymous however persons, any that Euro- as way same the much In conjunction. into brought individualized be can concept arithmetic of kind a is here there thator unitizes the individualizes concepts that drive arguments think I present. also argument) of (direction another movebinary simply allows an argument to take off in one direction by rendering or to constitute pairs, nor do they need to cut a whole into dichotomous halves. A to keep the two components of the initial distinction ( distinction initial the of components two the keep to 15 14 13 versus- knowledge identifiesencourage. asWhat Lederman practices American positivist- Euro- that perspective elementa oneof be might feature this if wonderalso I a wereinvariably there as though particularisms, of infinity the things, of characteristics and aspects titudinous “choose” to see things. (consciously ornot)minds own about uptheir how they make will they points: view own their have all who another, one to unknown or known persons, of full position). (a “constructed” viewpoint particular a take to So when a population of academics divides on an issue, it seems they have chosen a stance,” isto not “taking but necessary it seems itpracticeoften has that thus. situations where opportunities allow for different pos different for allow opportunities where situations from radically these to want One distinguish might them. about little do can they if even circumstances the to ciled . . . I am including here situations where people are recon here I situations am including Lederman, “Unchosen Grounds.” “Unchosen Lederman, Lederman, “Unchosen Grounds,” Grounds,” “Unchosen Lederman, / A feature of the kinds of bifurcations I am describing for Euro- describing Iam of bifurcations kinds of the Afeature I wonder if one of the facilities of a binary distinction is to render the mul the render to is distinction binary a of facilities the of one if wonder I This observation sits side by side with the apprehension that the world apprehension the is the that sidesidewith by sits observation This distinction). Theoutside terms of a bifurcation do not have to be opposites interpretive, or essentialist- / context ) together even more closely. Whereas one might otherwise say say otherwise onemight moreclosely. even Whereas together )

—

positions from which to atake stance 15 In other words, In “choosing one’s stance” belongs to the 50 — choice . so that there is great latitude in what can be be can what in latitude great is there that so versus- of emphasis to be made among them. And of emphasis madetoAnd be among them. 13 contextualizing, contextualizing, ways of knowing offer - - irrevocability. denies existence, of conditions their with up put to have not do large) and (by people that idea the improvement, Euro- prevalent the but sibilities, comparison 14

— Americans imagine imagine Americans “Making a choice” a “Making

whether the issue / relativism

— American American

and any American discourse of of discourse American or or - - - - -

Strathern • Binary License 91 Duke University Press, Press, University Duke NC: (Durham, Practice Medical in Ontology Multiple: Body 17 units. discrete or singular of definably tion 16 Anthropological Institute Perspectivism,” Amerindian and 18 2004 Routledge, U.K.: (Abingdon, . . . Common Knowledge 92 John Law, John I take plurality, in turn, as a state implying - a composi as a implying state in turn, I plurality, take Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, “Cosmological Deixis Deixis “Cosmological Castro, de Viveiros Eduardo After Method: Mess in Social Science Research Science Social in Mess Method: After can be mobilized as, so to speak, the viewpoint of choice. For the latter kind, kind, latter Forthe choice. of viewpoint the speak, to so as, mobilized be can viewpoint any which in kind the from of verserelativism yields adifferentkind It should tenet alsogo without that perspectivist the that saying there is no uni Divisions mathematics altogether. elicits. critiquesthe I that perspectivalism want to reserve division to than perspectivism to closer much epistemology/ontology an for it reserve want want to back take the notion of this distinction Making will introduce a in turn my language of argument. I now viewpoint. a take to capacity one and worlds many of ontology an implies ism perspectiv whereas viewpoints; oneworldmany and in grounded ontologically tures the idea that perspective creates a singular viewpoint, and if there are many many are there if and viewpoint, singular a them of creates perspective that idea the tures that has The been epistemic universe labeledname neatly cap “perspectivalism.” rie Mol in relation to Euro- to relation Molin rie Annema by graphically so described acting and knowing of ways in inherent “multiplicity” the perspectivalism, with contrast by Law,expounds, John who the antonym of perspectivism, at least of the Amerindian sort (and also of the sort sort the of also (and sort Amerindian Asia). the Inner in of found least at perspectivism, of antonym the of itself. critique spectivalism’s that elicit ofcontexts is enactments diverse knowledge. per practical Multiplicity view, this in Multiplicitynumerous the in exists, also but invariably overlapping from, other entities that cannot be reduced to a gatherableplurality into wholes. disjunct and with, joined entities implies multiplicity contrast By fragment. to creteentities: does that not a unit seem to hold together seems therebyits parts dis worldinto the resolve to seeks that mathematics a on rests add) would (I perspectivalism for generates, perspectivalism that fragmentation of language knowledge.She deliberately conceptual thewidespread stance against this takes of contexts shifting constantly of effect an argues, she is, world the in objects

4 It goes without saying that perspectivalism, together with its self- 2002 . 3 ( — 1998 ). are there as ): ): ); Annemarie Mol, Mol, Annemarie ); 469 Journal of the Royal Royal the of Journal – 88 ; “Perspectival 18 To out acts Euro- beperspectivalist — then they exist as a plurality. a as exist they then American medical knowledge. medical American The The division

Notes on the Ontology of Amazonian Spirits,” Spirits,” Amazonian of Ontology the on Notes cation,” Equivo Controlled of Method the and Anthropology 9 mism, and North Asian Indigenous Ontologies,” Ontologies,” Indigenous Asian North and mism, phrey, “Inner Asian Perspectivism,” Perspectivism,” Asian “Inner phrey, Hum Caroline and Empson, Rebecca Pedersen, Morten Institute Anthropological Royal the of nal – 141 . 2 ( , though I have used the word,already and 2007 52 . Tipití ): ): 153

– 2 7 . 1 2 ( ; Morten Pedersen, “Totemism, Ani 2004 16 ): ): The name comes from comesfrom name The 3 – 17 22 American pluralism, pluralism, American The multiplicity ofThe multiplicity ; “The Crystal Forest: Forest: Crystal “The ; Inner Asia 7 for a different . 3 ( 2001 critique, is

9 ): ): Inner Asia . 2 411 ( 2007 Jour – 27 ): ): ------; use the vocabulary of unilineal descent group theory). group descent of unilineal vocabulary the use (to permanent become identities distinct where fission, in of or a in ones, order as portions payment; to larger receive into lower of categories higher in the splitting for example, 21 Castro, “Perspectival Anthropology,” Anthropology,” “Perspectival Castro, de Viveiros (cf. “human” by meant is what of ground the Perspectivism,” 2 impossible. comparison makes relativity say that also and Willerslev of of terms in process this described also haveperceived.I are relations other which question. It is always a relationparticular and is created as the point of view from ( largest political (tribal) categories. (tribal) political largest the of that beyond fades unit a of sense the Hagen in partitions, innumerable many so is world the which of being, cosmic one the is unit order highest the Iquaye the of those as such systems in Whereas Hagen. in “groupings” tribal or the other hand, rests in the absoluteness of the body one inhabits; and it works by by works it and inhabits; one body the view of the engaging another upon of oneself. absoluteness the in rests hand, other the the possibility of numerous other viewpoints. The relativity of perspectivism, on of contingency acknowledging “choice”the in lies relativity (or chance) life and dental Perspectivism: Anonymous Viewpoints from Inner Inner from Viewpoints Asia,” Anonymous Perspectivism: dental 19 metrical. nally in a state of potential divisibility. Connections between such groups are are groups such between Connections divisibility. inter potential of being state a in nally multiple, a itself one each parallel, in entities many so as seen be also into tribes regional phratries or present- orbrothers- men(as partnership) in or between mother’s asymmetrically brother/sister’s son (as orenemies brothers- between way, whether symmetrically because this in another other one each on into locked being Their them. between perspectives relationship the of offer Persons relation). a to (parties persons” term the an entity into parts of itself, so that multiples are fractions of one. fractions are multiples that so of itself, parts into entity an the word resonates with a mathematics that presupposes the constant division of say I them. between divided is that relationship the to referring divides himself from his mother’s brother. It sounds awkward in English, but I am as between human/nonhuman entities. human/nonhuman between as are permissible, then that perspectivist reciprocity may be between human as well

0 parts of parts as segmentation notionally is taken . Such division . .

division Cf. Pedersen, Empson, and Humphrey, “Inner Asian Asian Humphrey, “Inner and Empson, Cf. Pedersen, Martin Holbraad and Rane Willerslev, “Transcen Willerslev, Rane and Holbraad Martin Inner Asia As already indicated, this division takes two forms, symmetrical and asym and symmetrical forms, two takes division this indicated, already As 22 ) themselves off, either from themselves or from others, as sister’s son sister’sson as others, from or themselves from either off, themselves ) human or or Symmetrical divisions are found, for example, in the dynamics of clan in-

143 partition 9 . 2 law,regarded wife- as ( – is redundant, perspectivist reciprocity may be between “social 2007 44 . The formula of course queries queries course of formula The . ): ):

— 329

in terms, that is,terms, in of which in manner the persons divide – 45 . Note that Holbraad Holbraad that Note . 16 ). 23 So while, hypothetically, people can group group can people hypothetically, while, So giver/wife- 20 day council districts, distinct tribes can can tribes distinct daycouncil districts, — Or, the in Melanesian situation where 19 as, as, Now, if non- - Big Men: Personifications of Power in Melanesia in Power of Personifications Men: Big in Person,” Fractal Wagner, “The Roy see 1988 of the Iqwaye Counting System and Number ( 23 Perspectivism.” Asian and “Inner Humphrey, Empson, in found Pedersen, 22 Maison des Sciences de l’Homme de Sciences des Maison (Paris: Strathern and Marilyn Godelier rice receiver),relation creates the in

Jadran Mimica, Mimica, Jadran . .

I am using the terms here in a way different from that that from different way a in here terms the using am I For a comment on the classical example from Iquaye Iquaye from example classical the on Forcomment a ]), where the counting system literally follows suit, suit, follows literally system counting the where ]), Amerindian Amerindian extensions in- Intimations of Infinity: The Mythopoeia Mythopoeia The Infinity: of Intimations law, as regarded division 21 because because , 1991 ), ), - - 167 [Oxford: Berg, Berg, [Oxford: Great Men and and Men Great Editions de la la de Editions – 68 , ed. Mau .

- Strathern • Binary License 93 24 Routledge, Routledge, Felicia Hughes- and Charles ed. Nick in son?” whom he is another kind of mother]). kind another he is whom [to sister his of children the as affine] male [to he is whom example, in thinking of the children of his brother- of his children of the thinking in example, (for to relation that party by other the switched another/is to relationship one from switches man a when as tions,

. Common Knowledge 94 Marilyn Strathern, “Gender: Division or Compari or Division “Gender: Strathern, Marilyn Practising Feminism: Identity, Difference, Power Difference, Identity, Feminism: Practising 1996 were making comparisons based on moral analogy. moral on based comparisons making were migrants Hagen the that speculated I end, the In themselves. like immigrants non-to orientation migrants’ the in on Moresby? I had always been struck by something I could not quite put my finger the in find to back gone I had What Mixing in Moresby world. unfamiliar an into familiar what happens when people move away from the relationships with which they are the person who is sister of one and wife of the other. ofthe to wife oneand of sister is who person relations the separate their between difference the in constituted is tie very whose highlight by the term term the by highlight orsuperfluous. thereYetan iselement these thatrelationsin might onewish to positions, different occupying but relationships. In viewpoints not individual switches person a then, enactment. its on turn that relations of universe when a “father” shows he is a kind of “mother”). of kind a is he shows “father” a when or assimilate cross- assimilate or versions of itself (like two subclans of a clan), the person may appear to eliminate from female. Instead of a person, so to speak, being divided into similar same- with the presupposedpartibility by gendered relations, where male is divided off resonates also ofdivision language the model.Asymmetrically, asymmetric an often managed as individual enmities and alliances (including intermarriage), on visible through its embodiment in a party,third as in the case of brothers- to a relation exist in that relationship for each other. This feature may be renderedis held by the relation (and it is always a specific relation) theof moment: parties from the other.divided neither In is case there any rate from recipients, who become locked into a relationship as though each were in intergroup encounters such a way as to render, donors case, classic in the sepa here;and indeed it offers indigenous an source of metaphor. itIt be applied can invoke to I why is which visible, are analogies such which under Melanesia in it is she who divides the two men. two the divides who she is it ). Partition engages “whole” reorienta Amid Amid all this complexity of relations, comparison seems either omnipresent Freeland (London: Freeland (London: sex attributes (as when “males” shed “female” attributes or attributes “female” shed “males” when (as attributes sex comparison in- law law - - , ,and it is element an occasioned by considering nography). eth Hagen original the of point starting (the responsible held is she which for tension with fraught relations into 26 25 26 . . What such a relationship does is create a create is does relationship a such What Viveiros de Castro, “Perspectival Anthropology,” Anthropology,” “Perspectival de Castro, Viveiros That division is translated very often, for the woman, woman, for the often, very is translated division That 1970 Hageners, whether local inhabitants or inhabitants local whether Hageners, s material on Hagen migrants to to migrants Hagen on material s 24 Gender is the prevalent rubric choice 25 Indeed, in HagenIndeed, idiom,in of perspective. A person in- law sex 19 - - . of of onemoment,” in any wrote I at claims group particular a advantages “The labile:were names origin or area inclusiveness of degrees the by escalate would collectivities involved that Antagonism people. of wholecongeries between conflicts and rivalries in by area their (place) tacts or (tribal) origin names, same the names that surfaced con such designated outsider,people an to talking In with. were they people ofwho those spent intermarried so into” much away “turned time they that the towhom knew. someand they pointing There in some was sure intermarriage, plea take would relationship, the to depth notmuch was there when even and, 28 hands. their on of grievances set another with themselves who find would perpetrators, alleged for the trouble mum - maxi cause to affiliations neighboring with victims off 27 differences. internal to tion atten little pay would say) injury, an for vengeance seeking (in who dwellers city or be as classed as “Highlands” “Chimbu” (from by Highlands) the Eastern other Hagenmen (from Western the Highlands) abounded. were toocouldonly aware they that people of categories different to attached Stereotypes ignorance. use in the original account. original the in use for point, I which nowThere a is term, a introduce further with oneself. To rehearse a Melanesianist aphorism, people were already related. name and, moreover, thatknew the name would the order signify of connection immediately know somebody’s origin name, one knew that the person had such a not did one if even And name. origin an bore also everyone for unknown, one did somerendernot name personal a knowing not specified: be could that gin For the names meant a start, that no one was anonymous. Everyone had ori an might not know the marriage particular practices or “customs” of a setparticular others as moral beings on the basis of of a kind comparison or resemblance: you orally categorically speaking. I speculated that the Hagen approached migrants to be the best way to describe overall relations with others, whether individu so salient. The names were, for these Hagen migrants, doing something else. something doing migrants, Hagen these for were, names The salient. so I would not even say that a latent possibility for conflict was what madethe names clear. become hope I will reason the 29 at the time. atthe anthropological thinking in was as current strategizing of notethnic talk really neider (in a personal communication). a personal (in neider . . . any One strategy of aggravation was in any event to pick pick to event any in was aggravation of strategy One Strathern, Strathern, I offer thanks here for comments from Almut Sch Almut from comments for here thanks offer I Hageners relished their individual contacts with people from elsewhere elsewhere from people with contacts individual their relished Hageners In effect, the pitting of collectivities against one another was sporadic, and and sporadic, was another one against collectivities of pitting the effect, In span” 28 , Skins Our on Money No

— I now think I Ishould now think not have used the word the first in place,and

and although I used the epithet epithet the used I although and 30 27

Indeed, interest groups formed on the basis of these these of basis the on formed groups interest Indeed, Analogy 1975 289 ; new emphasis. new ; ,“may be to disadvantage ofthe other groups resonates with what also seemed at the time - ethnic in that each comes from a particular social context. social a particular from comes each that in known is self the that way the in other the knows each that I would suggest Rather other’s situation. him- imagining each ofparties reflexivity Animism,” (“Totemism, “animism” Asian North for identifications” “analogous 30 . I use the term with some similarity to Pedersen’s to similarity some with term the use I ,Iconcluded we that could analogy , that I did not 416

), though I do not imply the the imply not do I though ), —

and of and 29 ------

or herself in the or in the herself — for example, example, for

Strathern • Binary License 95 the the common in something have terms that is tion Euro- in the idea in which of brings a practices, rela knowledge American likewise same he the with humanity); and (common here, make example I point the repeatedly makes Castro de Viveiros now. different doubt no are things 32 others. to relation or extension for capacity the with but context, own her or his into locked irreducibly is Highlander each article; this in elsewhere mentioned of brotherhood commonality to the referring not am I text.) the of body the in men of only wrote I and research, that when present I conducted Hagen from No Money on Our Skins Our on Money No 31 his or her her or his ple, however to a acquainted, greet slightly person using . . Common Knowledge 96

same Hence the practice among different Highlands peo Highlands different among practice the Hence I write of the ethnographic present of the early of early the present of ethnographic I the write term a to third relation own term for “brother” or “sister” (Strathern, (Strathern, “sister” or “brother” for term comparable moral communities. comparable communities. moral gous to one’s to gous own. analo someone circumstances in with one notion dealing was that the summon strategic use for the term term the for use strategic a have also I But reactions. own his about idea shrewd a had he because tion interac an to respond might Goilala or Mekeo a howaboutidea shrewd a had ing about another thing. We could observe that a Hagen migrant in Moresbyknow through aboutone thing know or say howonemay wordindicates the as appeals to humanity or citizenship lie outside. lie citizenship or humanity to appeals outside the entities being brought together, as one might imagine Euro- phenomenon. support They were embedded in their own context, with its demands and mechanisms of of (their people, observed own) butthey yourself, protocols. like you that, knew lary. Doing so is routine in part scholarly (Euro- vocabu of choice a been has there where junctures those evident made have I reaction to an injury or insult) was predictable. was insult) or injury an to reaction general behaviorthe of (whetherothers relationships interest forging an in or a ( common the they associationturned circumstances, into one of presumed unity was that people lived so to speak parallel lives. When they wanted to point to cation of like units” positions parallel of many universe this In names. the to parallel workplace,and examplesthat here; the in were infinite) are but possibilities the series of was itself identifications a further unity (based education, on language, , wantok , 276 The basis of comparison here was not any common ground or viewpoint viewpoint or ground common notany here was comparison of basis The As I have picked my way through these descriptions, none of them new, them of none descriptions, these through way my picked have I As

— – wantrening 77

just as you were. People lived, in the vocabulary I was using then, in in then, using was I you were.vocabulary as Peoplejust the in lived, ). (There were few women women few were (There ). — in contrast with a situ with contrast in 33 ,

— , etc.,wanwok in neo- Their world might be largely unknown, yet to this extent extent this to yet unknown, largely be world might Their

any particular encounter beyond close acquaintances could — namely, namely, analogy 1970 s; s; - - - Analogy and want to reserve reserve to want and 34 opportunity. and by fortune people are separated “soul,” obviously since Amazonian the of echo in possibly circumstances, moral 289 33 Anthropology,” “Perspectival Castro, de Viveiros instance, for See, party. ation where relations are created by created are where relations ation draw anyone into one’s affairs. into anyone draw inadvertently, or may, deliberately One another. one with to do people not are “strangers” they have will anything because that supposition no anonymity, of protocol no is there is, That generally. only known persons or of distant related closely are who those of whether others, of tions . .

. As for “circumstances,” I think I mean ideational or ideational I mean I think for “circumstances,” . As Quotation from Strathern, Strathern, from Quotation For the same reason, one can fear the unknown inten For one the unknown fear can reason, the same in English has a spin-useful Melanesian or pidgin English), but this 32 34 On the contrary, my impression 18 American) practice but is also a – 19 . resemblance No Money on Our Skins Our on Money No different — of “the repli of “the for another another for off, insofar ties to a third third a to ties American 31 ------,

conception of relationship of conception enable so much scholarly in intellectual creativity exposition work with acertain ers. So I am not turning away from the politics whenaway politics the region Ifrom refer for a to this not ers.SoIam turning self-on hugely feeds Balkanization Indeed evident. be should they right; description the getting in entailed action political though there is I notno shall from ethnicity. escape dwell on for the implications it looksas doing so. in Now Balkans, the in Balkans Iintroducethe ofanalysis. analogy) make clear that resemblance also belongs to a Euro- about writing it haveIused in (for resemblance and that term the all reallocate to want now I there. evidence in distinctions social certain of elucidation the MelanesianWith materials I mind, in have reserved the concept of division for Counterparts, Counterexamples? be summoned be residents city the among made being comparisons the about point crucial, mind my to and further, The “groups”). order lower and order higher of segmentation apparent the in and names tive collec ofdeployment the (in taxonomy ethnic familiar a like looks surface the on whatreconsider to is way this in oldmaterial this over going my for reason distinction between the language of description and the object of study. of object the and description of language the between distinction relationship/ the to sensitivity their given anthropologists, of proclivity special 36 other). the than awkward more sound always (one will words for obscure too other the and English, in 35 are a kind of mother and vice versa. vice and of mother a kind are fathers but “parents,” of kinds different not are mothers son is divided from person: succinctly put, fathers and through another set. another through pologists also do in setting up comparisons and abouttalking one set of materials anthro workthat conceptual the for dividends some hope, I yield, will another for people’sof terms analysis the onewith to make may wish relationsone with bifurcations and divides. binary Laboring, as I have been doing, over the choices a single one or has a common origin. common a has or one single a classification) “ethnic” the and is standoff Hagen/Papuan the appears(between ethnic conflict, I do notthatthink the ideational route by whichthe resemblance betweendrivers“Hagen”and “Papuan” taxi market traders looks any other like in the way effects peoplewherever themselves, mobilize are, they so that a dispute of himself and sons his in that a produces man saying multiple versions father their in origin common a have sons that saying . .

Hence one might wish to labor a distinction between between distinction a labor to wish might one Hence Nor need common ground be summoned when per summoned be Nor ground need common — the one phrase being immediately intelligible intelligible immediately being the one phrase

—

may get overlooked. get may 38 What I What to wish suggest is of that the kind that binarisms . — 36 37 For while I think there can be similar similar be can there think I Forwhile The same goes for the appearance of appearance the for goes same The namely, that no common ground need ground common no namely,that description and the ascription ofoth ascription the and description - the the person. Skin 38 similar. rather something at to get or Comparison?” Division “Gender: Strathern, See Euro- and Melanesia for described be can ideas between 37 . .

Crook is even more specific for Bolivip ( Bolivip for specific more even is Crook In an earlier exercise, I had drawn a distinction distinction a drawn had I exercise, earlier an In , 218 ). Bolivip composes knowledge after the form of of form the after knowledge composes Bolivip ). division American American language and and comparison 35 A main (in the way that gender - - - Exchanging Exchanging America). America).

Strathern • Binary License 97 countless accounts of it. (In other respects, of course, I of am course, respects, of other it. (In accounts countless for field epistemic an is it as insofar “Amazonia” or sia” “Melane like rather is Balkans” “the that appreciate will Anthropologists here direction. in a matters different take 40 sity Press, Press, sity the on Ambiguity and Greek- Marginality Locating Balkans: the from Green, See elicited. has it that patterning fractal new the and “multiculturalism” contemporary of respect in viewpoint essentialist this relocates Green Sarah here. 39 . . Common Knowledge 98

I am having to compress a subtle set of arguments arguments of set subtle a compress to having am I I began this argument in the companion paper but but paper companion the in argument this began I Albanian Border 2005 ), ), differentiation as matters of primordial identity primordial of matters as differentiation and solidarity ethnic to Balkans the in commitment deepof stereotype the that knowledge whether practices, American modernist or It postmodern. is,rather, are Euro- kans demonstrate is set,not- andeffect the another for materials of set one of respect in taken position a repeating am I put, counterparts Melanesian its through think to it using in sociality Amazonian redescribing effect in am I model, Castro’s de Viveiros Eduardo on draw I When tiation. differen ethnic of language conventional the is than convey to want I what to spectivism provide a vocabulary for abouttalking those phenomena that is closer per Asian or Inner aboutwho Amerindian write anthropologists is and was that or Port Moresby that I was describing reflect a species of perspectivism. My point bit a further. theorizing social in article. The is that purpose purpose also servesthis to explore processes certain as my guide. my as worth expanding a little; and I take Sarah Green’s reflections on her ethnography my point.However, makes antinomy ofpoint, sincethe stopcourse, at this it is could One allegiances. group and personal on based identities of formation the Euro- regular of antonym the them makes there fragment and proliferate identities which in way chaotic The Europe. of edge modernist) perspective, is composed of countless accounts that push them to the both. about theorizing social upset can enoughrelated to Euro- about closeness. People of the evince Balkans an epistemology that seems closely fragments disconnected leaving society, dislocate tion for such knowledge practices. knowledge such for 155 – 56 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer Princeton NJ: (Princeton, There was no need for me to demonstrate that the phenomena from Hagen The long history of the Balkans, from a Euro- a from Balkans, the of history long The . — 42 — Green is clear that the chaotic and fragmented picture that the the that picture fragmented and chaotic the that clear is Green American, in order American, to that offer suggest they an insight into Euro- ofabsurd it be face the on would so doing indeed which is a good example of what I mean by by mean I what of example good a is which American epistemology (so closeness the American that tospeak) quite- Notes Notes 40 replication.There is moreover no need for me to Moreover, there isargument toan also be made - - 42 at analysis attempts anthropological defeated repeatedly have practices edge - knowl whose Guinea) New Papua Ok, Mountain (the contrast 41 term. overall in the moves are encompassed both since in contradiction, points specific raising in or generalizations wild are these that is There for no a in objecting point contrast.) arguing . .

Green, Green, Though, for an example where the issue seems by by seems issue the where example an for Though, 41 relation little too Notes from the Balkans the from Notes 39

— — American understandings of understandings American as if segmentation as and if parti segmentation see Crook, Crook, see American (and especially especially (and American — — with a congeries of people people of congeries a with is a good comparator comparator good a is analogy . Exchanging Skin Exchanging — that the Bal the that . Otherwise Otherwise . . - - - - much relationship there, as Green crisply says, rather than too little. too than rather says, crisply Green as there, relationship much too Thereis direction. every from influences for crossroads a form time, same at the and, disconnection of state permanent a in are Balkans The everywhere. ing” society. ing” American sense is that between brothers, which is surely at the heart of ethnicity. ethnicity. of heart the at surely is common. in which interests have ought to Brothers brothers, between that is sense American Euro- the in relation archetypal the while sister/wife), the by (asdifferentiated is the similarity of the parties to each other that brings them into relationship. into them brings that toother each parties of the similarity the is it so ground common presupposes that relation a is epistemology/ontology:this Euro- to pertinent as describes Castro de Viveiros that relation of kind it wouldendorseconnections particular they seem that the For making in orderly orderly accounting. any from remainders” “messy up throw to another,always seem and onething proliferateinto more Yet stable between parts. lacking distinctions Balkans, the continually bring parts that way to the of and worked) whereshe area the in Greek, and observers) outside by analysis of tool out the constant application explicit an of formulae of differentiation cases, (for example, some Albanian in is, that (and fractally. propagates that knowledge or say, understanding is census). environmental or population a of respect in than rather developmentprojects, applications (Albanian and Greek applications, say, in respect of European Union Some not is least left a people’soverthing distinction, from implied. making knowledge of other dimension another always is there for effect, own its has tinction familism influences crudely, it put to that, solidarities. and Balkans people’sofconflicts the experience understanding for vocabulary a ally, is hegemonic, the forperspective it has put in place, as locally well as internation politieselsewhere. she with comparisons isclearsame time, that the At making Euro- a from ofthem image presentan is Balkans 45 44 43 relation image of is Amazonian that between an brothers- archetypal His 46 , Balkans the from Notes See analogy. fractal of the limits of the us reminding thus people and places about discourse fractal on influences heterogeneous the and described, mathematically ing, pattern fractal in formulae unvarying of application the . . . .

Green, Green, Green reminds the reader of the difference between between difference the of reader the reminds Green Green, Green, Green, Green, So Green examines the fractal imagery that is implicit in many descriptions A presumption that solidarity follows similarity follows solidarity that presumption A 45 , Balkans the from Notes , Balkans the from Notes One effect isfor One peopleeffect , Balkans the from Notes — has to be the premise upon which division is seen as “fragment as seen is division which upon premise the be to has 47 So perhaps it is is it perhaps So 153 44 ; also ; also Indeed one might observe that the very application of a dis a of application very the that observe might one Indeed 142 142 129 14 . 4 . . . resemblance

—

locals, observers locals,

— that defeats people in the Balkans. Balkans. the in people defeats that - 49

43 (for instance, through inheritance laws). generated in inequalities interest and the intense common 49 48 source. the at divided is kinship) (and hearth the affiliations: social spouses’ the of division cal - on are when based households a categori intimacy Hagen of heart the at be could group domestic a as “family” a 47 What is What hegemonic, we might . . . American perspective that is is that perspective American Viveiros de Castro, “Perspectival Anthropology,” Anthropology,” “Perspectival de Castro, Viveiros Hence the drama when brothers do not have much in in do much not have brothers when drama the Hence To press home the point: nothing comparable to comparable nothing point: the home Topress

—

toperceive connections

—

a kind of enlarged enlarged of kind a 46 American American in- law 48 - - - -

. Strathern • Binary License 99 another viewpoint. another from apprehended be thus and relationship another for of be or part also a could of term or for a term relationship part any that is connection merographic about argument ern, Strath Marilyn See connection.” a as “merographic lated the in formu I practices what to kinship/knowledge English of context resemblance) on (based comparison a draws 50 tury

. Common Knowledge 100 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: Green, Green, After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Cen Twentieth Late the in Kinship English Nature: After Notes from the Balkans the from Notes and and the perception be can endlessly replicated. is Relationship implied: that other in Moresby. in implied, as we could well redescribe the moral analogies made by Hagen migrants terns, of which the best described is the person,”“fractal an entity with relations pat fractal produce that ontologies other are there And prerogative. American Euro- a is decision-making bifurcating than more any oppositions, or trasts, - con pairs, with proceed that epistemologies other not are there that suggest not describes with respect to social theory. Quite obviously, generalization this does in order to compose an exposition and that fuel the intellectual endeavor Abbott made,mustbe over that over and again, of connections kinds of enactment the powerful a are thus particularly distinctions Binary them. mon between ground) (thecom resemblance the up shows that relation the to prior as terms the ing establish and connected them keeping simultaneously terms, between intervals terms. the between resemblance of) form (some through detected archetypically are there there has to be a connection has to be chosen. be to has connection however,(relevant) the enactment, each At too. elsewhere connected speak) to the perspectivalist world of things with preexisting attributes preexisting with world ofthings perspectivalist the that Euro- means prior,which as regarded are that relation, the not terms, the again and it overis assumption, latter of this of critiques plenitude. Despite regime many this in (moreless)anywhere or made be can links that so entities, and parties, notionThis of choice is a prop to the notion that relations (actively) terms, link possibilities. other and direction of choice the between divide binary a duces pro road, bifurcating the momentselection, of “Western”? orThat “Eastern” of another entity. another of part as redescribed be selected, attributes the on depending can, attributes its tional fragmentation tional Moldescribes. Balkans aboutthe and in viewpoints of proliferation The Here we see some of the crucial work of distinctions: binary they maintain Americans and thosestance they recruit continueall toAmericans this to live in 53 There each person another; is at in onceand sees himself himself 52 , 130 Hence the effort: one strives to create connection. Implicitly, Implicitly, connection. create to strives one effort: Hencethe cause 50 . Green herself herself Green . All the bits that make up “Greek” identity are already (so already are identity “Greek” up make that bits the All for a relation. To follow Vivieros de Castro again, relations

—

has an epistemic entailment: any entity divisible into into divisible entity any entailment: epistemic an has 992 ). My My ). 51 - - - Should one think of Greece as fundamentally fundamentally as Greece of think one Should 51 52 inhabits. one world the alters relationship the trast Con extent. great any to them modifying or possibilities other eliminating without context) (a relevance of field 53 maintained. be to has agrees) Law here (and but “constructed” only not is world this of “thinginess” . . .

In In Wagner, “Fractal Person, Person, Wagner, “Fractal Mol’s critique is, of course, that the multiplicity and and multiplicity the that course, of is, Mol’scritique perspectivalist perspectivist transformation by which one enacted enacted one which by transformation fashion, the choice will create a new new a create will choice the fashion, 5 –73 159

— — .”

the world that the

about its rela aboutits ------Berghahn, Berghahn, in Conflict Mimeticand 55 And there already exists an alternative and more comprehensive account than my my than account comprehensive more and brief rendition alternative an exists already there And so many accounts into which one could, greatwith intellectual profit, be locked. isity the remaindering of effect being aware that so much more lies “out there,” reading is evident. But what would account a less partial look than like? Partial Of I course, have in been selective my highly ofown tale; weaving the partial this Exemplification in ethnicity. in to encompass Melanesia, among other regions, and takes a serious interest as well seen to be enacted. be to seen risms of intellectual propagation to interfere with how other- bina kinds heady of the want not would relations One are language. of choice constant a with faced is The assimilated. totally nor separate anthropologist the delicatelife, the ofsocial process in describing pointthat, is completely neither related, already is person tool Euro- powerful a deploying is anthropologist 54 the in variety showlittle so conflicts mentonethnic how and national it that is com wonderful his comes observation From this groups. ethnic and ofnations others against an underlying homogeneity, exemplified aboveall inthe exertions one another” ( another” one into off shade and overlap just, and right is what of senses various the and world, knowledges, the its “that observes of fashion, a phenomena. “toomuch relationship” Law in concentrated on what Freud called the “narcissism of minor differences.” minor of “narcissism the called Freud what on concentrated always has that René Girard) aboveBlok, and all Bateson,Anton mel,Gregory he tions, to points a in Euro- countercurrent confronta national with but also ethnic not Concerned with just effect. course!) (of different to though differentiation, of model perspectivalist prevalent the headonits turns Mol, Harrison property.Like cultural property,culture, tity, rivalry of substance the with concerned is book his of much and shows, oneengender he doanother, that so. Similarities rivalries, it similarities is their with people into conflict thrust received that to the notionit that differences is is inherently contrastive, and ethnicity always relational. always ethnicity and contrastive, inherently is Many other streams of thought feed into this one, including the process. ideaimitative an that identityitself is conflict that notion the derives Harrison Girard, . .

— Simon Harrison, Harrison, Simon In using the very vocabulary of “relations,” the the “relations,” of vocabulary very the using In albeit one that unlocks all kinds of comprehensions of comprehensions kinds all one albeit unlocks that What What Harrison adds is that people strive to assert their dissimilarities from 2006 After Method After 55 ). Harrison hasHarrison a radical thesis aboutthat contrary arguing conflict, — Simon Simon Harrison’s book FracturingResemblances:Identity

54 Melanesia and the West the and Melanesia Yet seemingly one cannot do without the binarisms either. binarisms the without do one cannot Yet seemingly , 63 ). American American (Oxford: (Oxford: Fracturing Resemblances American social science social (Georg Sim American 56 57 Discontents Ego the of Analysis ( Taboo “The of Virginity” in are differences” minor of “narcissism the on ments suggested, suggested, in certain Euro- binary distinctions work to keep terms together. terms keep to work distinctions binary (Harrison, . . Thus, “cultural differences are social relationships” relationships” social are differences “cultural Thus, Harrison, Harrison, ( 57 Fracturing Resemblances Fracturing 1929 Fracturing Resemblances Fracturing ). ( ), and especially especially ), and 1921 , which manages American American knowledge practices 1918 — 56 ), ), From Group Psychology and the the and Psychology Group iden , 6 3 , ). As I myself have have myself I As ). 2 Civilization and Civilization Its - - - - - – 3 . Freud’s. com

- Strathern • Binary License 101 actor social the suppose of both pre that them noted suggesting above, monalities com social concerning sciences social in traditions trary con two the to returns he authors), as such individuals, other (and group ethnic the of “individuality” the duces pro that of resemblance denial it the is that Arguing son. about the per presumptions (!) dissimilar he differentiates which in book, the of end the at critique interesting most 6 59 58 61 individual. And he does so against the background of per background the he so against does And individual. 0 . . . . Common Knowledge 102

Harrison, Harrison, Harrison, Harrison introduces (without discussing further) a further) discussing (without introduces Harrison Harrison, Fracturing Resemblances Fracturing Fracturing Resemblances Fracturing Fracturing Resemblances Fracturing is the case in Melanesia) or it may be disguised, as in the altered cognition appar cognition (and “West”). prevalent the nationalism and in fostered byethnicity ently altered the in as disguised, be may it or Melanesia) in case the is ofmay be conflict nature openly acknowledged argues suchas Harrison (which divide in his language his in divide has Harrison overtly, out, act Melanesians whatof form strenuous efforts to differentiate themselves. to differentiate strenuous efforts people’s involved in whatwas wherein Melanesia, Harrison’slargely is interest colonial to regard with including insights, particular offer not does book the and, very nicely for a Melanesianist to savor, of showing how that part of the the of part that how showing savor,of to Melanesianist a for nicely very and, equivalent on footing an all work us receivedimportant ofdoing the as putting (Euro- our in acceptable than interests. their pursue and identities their symbolize they way identity, property) cultural present-by stimulated account of possessiveness, eral gen his encourages that stance this partly Itis everywhere. dopeople what of, atic. So ethnic conflict becomesanother version of, if not positively paradigmatic problem central a description of language the making from back draw does it Harrison’s synthesis does not deny different conceptions of identity.cultural But divides.” then he ofresemblances,” hostile writes it“mutually being “a that likeness mutual oneanother. from But off divided being persons imagined haveI which in way fractured.” ference,” so striven after, is to be understood as resemblance “denied, muted and ofup sums by that much his denied argument saying resemblance. “difHarrison monalities com now rendered disguise covert. that Such modes argues, he of identity are best viewed as forms dissimilarities, of kinds particular engenders latter that perceiving analogous relations is not the same as perceiving resemblances. is perceiving notas relations same the analogous perceiving that point that it is relations that divide (persons from one another) and moreover add The result is a remarkable work of synthesis, which does not mean that that mean not does which synthesis, of work remarkable a is result The — 62 collective or singular Of course, with respect to Melanesia, I would be bound to rehearse the 60 By seeing this Westernconcealed a as modeformation of identity this By seeing , , , 152 64 152 . and indeed demonstrates his model across the global stage. global the model across his demonstrates indeed and . . —

— as an an as

which turns outwhich toturns be a message that may be more American, still modern) times. I imagine it being itbeing imagine I times. modern) still American, ------other by being already in relationship with it. with relationship in already being by other the on has (“theory”/“ethnography”) each that effect the and alignments parallel about ask might I thinking, logic ana by oneworld modified see), a makes fashion in then as body (the inhabited world) is to (what perspective the a in wonder, wouldto be “theory” “ethnography” vision perspectivist Perspectivism”) (“Transcendental Willerslev and Holbraad as If, with. began I distinction binary the 63 ( Melanesia colonial in construed differently sons 62 Resemblances ing . . Harrison, Harrison, It would be interesting to come, at this juncture, to to juncture, this at come, to interesting be would It 61 His account seemingly echoes the the echoes seemingly account His Fracturing Resemblances Fracturing , 154 ). day culturalisms (cultural (cultural dayculturalisms noneed to create a binary 58 , 5 The mimetic mimetic The , 152 . 59 Fractur The 63 ------

also being described now as inevitable. now as described being also on which I reported is hardly recalled by anyone. Conflict described is as ethnic interlude early The time. some for conflict ofethnic vocabulary the using been have there, others among servants, civil and magistrates Guinean New Papua past the was imagine people what with ity whether in the Highlands or exported to Moresby, look tribal fighting simplyalong bothestablished likeand continu novelalignments. Todaysuch troubles, (among system introducedjudicial led the toother aof resurgence things) with money did their work. After a couple of decades of quiet, mounting dissatisfaction pitched expectations, man- the PNG Highlands? Well, it was not long before misunderstanding, awkwardly could. possibly I as long as day the defer would I case, any In elsewhere. conflicts about say to something has world 64 well depend much very on their antecedents different in social configurations. it comes to “conflict resolution,” howantagonisms are effectively laid to restmay aboutsolidarity. where it has come from! Although, cultural as Yaeland Navaro- worry to need no be loyalty will for there vocabulary, same model the use all we day one When universal a ethnicity makes that conflict of hegemonicdescription a accept and peoples Balkan the like become all may created out of quite different social and conceptual antecedents. Who cares? We been worldhave the across people of congeries between troubles and disputes ground. common to Newnham College, Cambridge, October October Cambridge, College, Newnham Engagement,” Anthropological and Knowledge “Legal (lecture, of Conflict” Management Legal The nationally: Yael Navaro- am grateful for permission to cite this paper. this cite to permission for grateful am .

See the critique of this widely applauded stance in in stance applauded widely this of critique the See And my vignette, from forty years ago, about pacification and peace in peace and pacification about ago, years forty from vignette, my And So perhaps it really does not matter that what may look like very similar similar very like look may what that matter not does really it perhaps So Yashin, “Governing Social Relations Inter Relations Social “Governing Yashin, murdering vehicles, education, and too much/too little 3 – 4 , 2008 ). I I ). — - a matter of tradition. Present- tradition. of matter a 65 nationally.” .

Navaro- 64 In short, Harrison points Yashin would say, when Yashin, “Governing Social Relations Inter Relations Social “Governing Yashin, day day 65 -

- Strathern • Binary License 103 Symposium: Comparative Relativism

Strathern’s New Comparative Anthropology

Thoughts from Hagen and Zambia

Bruce Kapferer

Marilyn Strathern, recalling her Hagen ethnography, asks challenging questions about the character and potential of anthropological generalizations grounded in comparative ethnographic knowledge. In taking a new look at the issue of comparison, Strathern aims to overcome all sorts of dualisms (or simple binarisms), distorting oppositions, and simple negative inversions (whereby what is defined as distinct is frequently presented as the obverse of Euro-American realities). The bifurcation of difference that she stresses opens the potential of partial connections rather than absolute distinctions: differences that separate can also be integral with other aspects that establish connections through similarity. Strath- ern emphasizes the multiplicity of perspectives (akin to Alfred Schutz’s “multiple realities”?) and refuses notions of coherent and discrete totalities or unities that characterized comparisons in the highly relativist anthropology of yore. This article of Strathern’s, as also her recent work as a whole, pushes beyond the negative dialectics of modernism versus postmodernism versus poststructuralism that have governed anthropological and sociological debate and discussion, though less extensively than in philosophy and the humanities. I note, however, a lean- ing in her orientation toward the current technologically influenced discourse

104 or perspectivism perspectivalism between Castro’s de Viveiros Eduardo to as well as perspectivism. With regard to the last, she makes separations), a distinction, on the one hand, than rather connectivities of John Law, Mol, Annemarie and especially Bruno Latour (who similarly stress Amajor reference positions neorealist posthuman. of toofisthe the her article pology’scomparative project andto more concerns specific ethnographic about place Strathern’s in the context of to discussion relating anthro other arguments logicalproject, whileavoiding point, some I would to ofAt this pitfalls. like the important step toward restoring comparison to a central place the in anthropo an takes she of Strathern’sessay.much In occupies it, which conflict, ofethnic perspectivism (as applied to Amazonia), as well as in Simon Harrison’s discussion of Thusare evident shea risks dualism the that Viveirossuggests de in Castro’s son and apparent is in still to some developwho approaches. alternative are trying compari anthropological much dogs that (bifurcation?) relativism dualistic the does not necessarily equate ontology a conflation culture, with that is afactor in Strathern anthropologists, approachmany would Unlike tocomparison reveal. connectivities that do not necessarily erase a more restricted sense that Strathern’s notions of two ontology the Ihaveto which formerreferred, underpinning the combining as understood be ofcan ontology questions aside. Strathern casting perspectivist and neorealist directions in anthropology that, for the most part, are new face ofthe radical in apparently of ontology) of for uses anthropologists, the wayof(and back comparativism importance to the to a more concept restricted She pointless. claws herand irrelevant comparison makes sense broad,primary she (though also impression the Strathern’s in point), is forideaon perpectivalism this she the ambiguous contests that is think I which exclusive, mutually be not iscosmologically anddefined enclosed.differentThese forms of ontology need Viveirosde Castro’s sense nonhuman a within single open, networked, horizontal field of ontology sibilities, one that is likewise manifested in advanced mathematics. Another form general ontological with pos numbers an evidences embodied imaginary human to approachIqwaye unique apparently howthe showable to is cites, Strathern dimension ofwhose So Iqwaye an Jadran ontological Mimica, research universal. such are beings, human between demonstrated being, human or that are ethnographically the differences one ontology as a fact of their common embodiment. The differentiation within the in united as beings human conceives ofall usage One ways. different many anthropologist. the of viewpoint commanding the through united are that and context logical onto specific a within potential are that perspectives of multiplicity the hand, Ontology (as has Graham Harman reminded us recently) is used in a great

—

which, according to Strathern, is that of perspectivism in Eduardo within the one ontology one the within

—

involvesa more discrete embodied orientation that — the the multiple of positions and human , every difference expressing a expressing difference every ,

—

and, on the other - - - - -

Kapferer • Response to Strathern 105 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Press, of Chicago University (Chicago: Back 1986 Perspective pological 1980 Implications Its and . Common Knowledge 106 Louis Dumont, Dumont, Louis ); ); ); ); Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology inAnthro Ideology Modern Individualism: on Essays The German Ideology: From France to Germany and and France From to Germany Ideology: The German phy, as well as in anthropological ethnography. anthropological in as well phy, as provenance)in Enlightenment much philoso that has political been essentialized (of imbued an ideological with and individualism Euro- normative more explicitly acknowledges that of McKim Marriott, Dumont’smajor critic. Marriott, ofMcKim that acknowledges moreexplicitly some resonance with the work of Louis Dumont, although her general approach has comparison anthropological of revitalization Her urbanism. and ethnicity of relativism and the Charybdis of universalism Charybdis the and ofrelativism Scylla the between course difficult a steer to does, Strathern as tried, Dumont and connecting as abstract universals. The concepts are both concrete and general, distinguishing anesian ethnography, these concepts are, in different ways, then reconceptualized and Mel Indian in their grounded initially Although principles. are comparative approach“partibleto person” the (related to Marriott’sconcept of dividual) the methodology. anthropological comparative a for India, in work ethnographic his on based conceptualizations, develop to attempted Dumont materials, Melanesian on depends which work, Strathern’s demonstrate the continuities despite differences among human beings (though beings human among despite differences continuities the demonstrate taneously connect as they separate. They promise an anthropology that is able to that simul and principles ous for processes in attempts anthropology, stress they under sociological for force general Melanesia. has beyond standing understanding this that and constituted, value does not exist in Melanesia, but rather exists as a partible being relationally Dumont argues about India, StrathernAs effectively argues thatothers. the individual as with form to come people that relations the to prior entity grated coherentinte a as conceived not is individual or person the because precisely conceives of Melanesian dividualism as a principle that permits interconnections regation in the United States, apartheid, and Nazi racist essentialism). Strathern seg being instances (extreme identity in unity and communities national neous value but has continued to show racism in its and effects notions in of homoge individualist and egalitarian with accordance in suppressed is Hierarchy unity. contrast or opposition that his comparative method reveals also discloses a deeper situation fromEurope. that in differs this However, Onsurface, the surface the hierarchy. of expressive ways, concrete various their in are, India in practices diverse Dumont’sanalysis, in Thus, difference. the through unity a taneously, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Press, of Chicago University (Chicago: (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Press, Chicago of University (Chicago: Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System System Caste The Hierarchicus: Homo Dumont’s concept of hierarchy (and encompassment) and Strathern’s Strathern’s and encompassment) (and hierarchy of concept Dumont’s The comparativism of The Dumont are from previ and different very comparativism Strathern — demonstrating irreducible ethnographic specificity and, simul specificity irreducible ethnographic demonstrating 1994 ). - 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Press, of Chicago University (Chicago: . See also Marshall Sahlins, Sahlins, Marshall also See 2 In a spiritsimilar to the body of

—

a universalism that, albeit, is that, auniversalism Culture and Practical Reason Practical and Culture American post- American 1976 ). ------1

continual actualization of new potential. new of actualization continual the for frame dynamic a is hierarchy which in entiation of differ a logic posits conception hierarchical Dumont’s York: Blackwell, (New Approach Holist The in Anthropology,” 3 American social scientific thinking and that is seen to be centrally involved in the the in involved centrally be to seen is that and failure of comparative and generalist objectives. But that Dumont I wouldthink thinking scientific social American Euro- of root the at is explains, Dumont as that, concept a value, as individual for is example, presented away as a the from isms).shift individualism, Marriott’s individualist, rooted in the conceptualizations of recent history (and its futur this is not necessarily the case. the notnecessarily is this Dumont’s of that Strathern, position moremight seenbealthough far as static, emergence forwith the ofpoints newcontrast wholes being In or assemblages. parts the relation, dynamic more wholesinto and parts placing holism such of only be conceived through its relation with the whole. Strathern is wary, I think, he considers tradi to be their Eurocentrism. the Dumont in is a holist for whom the part can formalist a much very is tion of Dumont andDurkheim later Lévi- distinct. are Strathern and Dumont role. negative whereby its comparative and ethnographic work is assigned a positive rather than with the significance of both.Anthropology isdivested ofthe spoiling reputation seems Strathern more reticent Dumont about than continuities) the and to deal the contemporary Euro- contemporary the which in turn has its kinship to Strathern’s perspective), is set unabashedly within Latour (which bears some resemblance to Manuel DeLanda’s assemblage theory, Actor- distinct. unbridgeably be held to may ferences have and and that separations a anthropology comparative previous dif as appear may what over cross that relations of variety a from unplugged or individual, but rather partible, a point of differentiation that can be plugged into notis coherenta person singular the nography, integrated that indicates which orientation of Marriott. Both in some ways accordactor- as withsuch approaches, ence her Melanesian eth risks. potential some expose to only if approach, Strathern’s touseful raise a few questions that Dumont might have considered in relation to orders), Strathern’s viewpoint is more open and contemporary. Nonetheless, homogeneousit to is claim, critics some as committed, Orientalist, an not (if alist andvirtuality. nature of existence as conceived in a world of digitalized technology, cyberspace, . See Bruce Kapferer, “Louis Dumont and a Holist Holist a and Dumont “Louis Kapferer, Bruce See Apart from their similarities in purpose or spirit, the perspectives of of perspectives the spirit, or purpose in similarities their from Apart Methodologically, she aligns herself with increasingly dominant social sci social dominant increasingly with herself aligns she Methodologically, 4 Theory and Practice in Anthropology: Anthropology: in Practice and Theory Dumont, I surmise, would see this development as blatantly blatantly as development this see would surmise, I Dumont, , ed. Ton Otto and Nils Bubandt Bubandt Nils and TonOtto ed. , 2010 ), ), 213 American re- American – 38 , where I argue that that argue I where , 3 While Dumont be While can described as a tradition network theory, as well as with the dividualist dividualist the with as well as theory, network Strauss, although Dumont toaims escape what imagination or re- or imagination network theory, at least in the workof the in least at theory, network - Press, Press, tion to Actor- 4 uum, uum, Complexity Social and Theory Assemblage . Bruno Latour, Latour, Bruno 2006 2005 ). ); Manuel ); Network- ontologization of the the of ontologization Reassembling the Social: An Introduc An Social: the Reassembling DeLanda Theory (Oxford: Oxford University University Oxford (Oxford: , A New Philosophy of Society: Society: of Philosophy New A (London: Contin (London: ------Kapferer • Response to Strathern 107 5 Patton (London: Continuum, Patton Continuum, (London: the Baroque the . Common Knowledge 108 See Gilles Deleuze, Deleuze, See Gilles , trans. Tom Conley (London: Athlone, Athlone, Tom (London: Conley , trans. were already were present, already if in suppressed, Westernand thought. social philosophical itasradical at first appears, since shethatdiscoveringin is Melanesia directions as be not may destabilization her Furthermore, ethnography. Melanesian tive Westernsustains authority while appearing to destabilize it her with compara generated. be can assemblages social of different variety a which from into a composite set of dividuals, each of which effectively acts like an individual the individual is no longer a coherent entity (or a butself) unitary is broken down expansion of the individual- (and, Strathern’s byextension, seeMarriott person) notion partible an of as the was was engaged to Zambia, relations, often In fleeting, urban produce communality. Difference unities. new form could separate considered been have would who they used to generate new social and categoriescultural in terms of which people difference(they of behavedpast), the anthropological comparativists like which of Strathern’s Hageners, involved a thorough consciousness of social and cultural wouldhave been regarded those of such.as practices like The Zambians, urban situations other orders, orwhat in cultural and social separate over thoroughly crossed that created were assemblages social new which through and defined were relations social their of which terms in categories, shifting and ferentiating areas developed many novel, situationally relevant, and therefore dif constantly situation in Hagen as Strathern defines it,in Zambiamigrants tothe townlike fromRather nowZambia. is rural what in researchers (RLI) Institute Livingstone her observations, which to me resonate those with of Gluckman’s Max Rhodes- for no originality relations.She claims of their multiplicity the establish to ties reali their up carve Hageners which in way fractalizing even differentiating, of Hageners. relationalities the underpinning be may Mimica, by described cosmo- a that hersuggestion be would example door.An back the in creeping be could binarism comparative a here and way; herpresent much in as article, other work), but a more in tentative and subdued (in critical also is Strathern potential. generalizing hadreal that understanding comparative authentic an developing for crucial as regarded he which uation, sit historical own his of critique thorough a on insisting by trap this avoided sense) of came. Dumont the largely worldmainly from which the anthropologists Dumont’s in least, (at dimensions embedded ideologically confirming and ing West ended which, for in other apparent their systems, all up strangeness, reveal cal appearance. The fault of early comparative anthropology was to discover the There of could be old, to a anthropology the comparative despite return the radi Difference Difference and Repetition Whether Whether or not critiquethis of Marriott is fair, it does seem that Strathern As a demonstration of her argument, Strathern describes the complex, the describes Strathern argument, her of demonstration a As 2004 ); ); The Fold: Leibniz and and Leibniz Fold: The , trans. Paul Paul trans. , 1993 as- value idea and as a form of hyperinvidualism. Thus ). ontology of the Iqwaye sort, as as Iqwayesort, the ofontology ------5

integratedtotality. an as life urban Zambian of conceive not did example, for Mitchell, it. sented town. in forming are they that relations the for suppressed, if relevant, deeply still itwere, as as roots, ontological tribal Hageners their the tribesmen, of simultaneously conceives Strathern situations), tribal rural to situations town onpositionof Gluckman’s(which Playing relations town. in opposed extremist base occluded the as space urban into persist villages migrants’ in relations of one. ontological aThatvertical the is, with dimensions ahorizontaldistinction Latour.) by popularized being currently that from distinct is which approach, attempted to group, eventually overcome his “network” with the dichotomization relevant to the Hageners. the to relevant as sees Strathern that kind even cultural and ontology restricted of the stresses psychologism, which is always a risk, though not a necessity, of an orientation toward individualist antagonism thattheir and of structure despiteprivileging their so is This original). entirely poten something of toward production the toward is, oriented (that and tial fluid more is society) of unity inherent the of notions approach that the RLI researchers experimented with (in explicit reaction against prefer. sheevent-The might otherwise more tion than integra ofsocial/societal dimension a intimates Strathern’sargument that tive) spaces). rural and urban both order (in postcolonial and colonial of the being preferable motivat in this case), whose were predominantly those of the political economy participants of ontologicalconditions, ing (ideological rather than fundamentals constructions perspectives manifold the with accordance in were relations These recreated. constantly being were relations which in situations, gists at the time. ( time. the at gists spective and for which these researchers wereper criticizedRLI the marked bythat manyseparation and anthropolodivision urban/rural the with disagree would Strathern Further, formed. relations and associations new the underpin ontological persisting mask (if that differences Iher understand argument) may mopolitanism. Strathern’s critical take is that such mayglobalizing intermixture cos of to context the as contemporary in what some referring are commentators conditions current the in attested, and of especially and urbanization migration widely be can dynamics Such formed. were relations actual which of terms in were constituted in and through the category, whichrelation expressed a virtual The (Manchester, U.K.: Manchester Press, University Towns African Central in Relationships Personal of Analyses 6.

J. Clyde Mitchell, J. Mitchell, Clyde Kalela The RLI point is, of course, more complicated than I have so far repre replace to seems divide conceptual However,ofthe Strathern’sresolution Here I would suggest (still in the context of the RLI situationist perspec situationist RLI the of context the in (still suggest would HereI Dance: Aspects of Social Relationships among among Relationships Social of Aspects Dance: Social Networks and Urban Situations: Situations: Urban and Networks Social

J. Clyde Mitchell, the key urban anthropologist of the RLI RLI the of anthropologist urban key the Mitchell, Clyde J. 6 As he saw it, life flowed through a diversity of events and events of diversity a through flowed life it, saw he As 1969 );

Manchester Manchester University Press, U.K.: (Manchester, Rhodesia Northern in Africans Urban centered and situational centeredsituational and 1956 ). ------

Kapferer • Response to Strathern 109 Common Knowledge 110 ing venture. ing illuminat always and exciting her of aspects shaping be may that underpinnings somethemybut, view, in of recognizes ideological insufficiently or ontological project a such with line in is workStrathern’s determined. are similarities and that is sensitive to descriptive the very concepts through which differences both and continuing critique of the historical grounds of one’s own understanding, one to method Vital is this a assertions. concern and to theoretical develop a thorough conceptual general and particular ofboth testing forthe method experimental outside them. comparativeHis methodology was developed as aof kind internal simultaneously with his exploration of people who on the surface appeared to live realities own ofhis today. ofinvestigation us rigorous Hea many attempted to outdated appear may who Dumont, to referred have I experience). nographic eth particular their from derive might anthropologists that those (including (whichcritique aengagedrejection) notis ofnecessarily conceptualizations the sort of anthropology, but some of the dangers or risks may be reduced through a any for one enduring an be to likely is obstacle This theory. dominant some of those thoroughly are assumptions their and description of apparatuses ceptual theory, but metropolitan) doing so means is rendered problematic when con the showshow decenter ethnographycan anthropological (which dominant usually apparent separations of difference through the very study of difference. the explode Strathern effectively can that program a difference, of study the through ity human common a discovers that anthropology ofan contribution potential the exemplifies Strathern difference. based ethnographically be to surface the on appears what of examination the through universals or generalities discover to attempts which comparison, anthropological to integral orientation bifurcated the of difficulties the manifest to continues approach her But important. ogy ontologies. local of evance rel the aside push systematically might that forces political wider to connected as the power of certain anthropological and sociological concepts, are thoroughly parison and association engaged by in Hageners contexts, as well urbanizing in thermore, and of the similarities differences, com dynamics the fractionalizing Fur changed. effect, in and, suppressed be increasingly would they suspended, or transformed created areas, if entirely not zones, anew urban in while rural in radically or suspended be would ontologies rural that be would Hagen, about Strathern’s kind of questioning goes to the heart of to goes heart anthropol the what ofStrathern’smakes questioning kind observations Strathern’s from distinct as Zambia, for point RLI The ------Symposium: Comparative Relativism

ONE, TWO, THREE

Cutting, Counting, and Eating

Annemarie Mol

Divided they stand, perspectivalism and perspectivism.1 Here: one object (one nature to observe) and many subjective (cultural) perspectives on it. There: one subject position (where knowing resonates with the invariable concerns of the eater-who-might-be-eaten) and many natures (prey or predators). Here one world, many viewpoints; there one viewpoint, many worlds. Multiculturalism versus multinaturalism: the binary is stunningly clarifying and movingly beautiful.2 But where to go from here? The white skin has been painted. It is yellow with iodine — a tangy smell. Around the yellowed skin, green cloth. Green cloth also largely hides the bodies of those standing around the operating table. A gloved hand holds a knife and, with a corrective movement, takes a better grip on it. It may be important to stress the differences between us. Not just because, in a world of “ethnicity,” similarities are as likely to engender fights as differences. But also because, as it happens, if differences are not attended to, the conceptual

1. The author wishes to thank Mieke Aerts and John Law 2. Strathern draws this image and analysis from Edu- for their intellectual support. ardo Viveiros de Castro, “Exchanging Perspectives: The Transformation of Objects into Subjects in Amerindian Ontologies,” Common Knowledge 10.3 (2004): 463 – 84.

111 Nature, No Culture: The Hagen Case,” in in Case,” Hagen The Culture: No Nature, 3 logues,” logues,” Dia Feminist/Constructivist Stories: Moving Sexes, ing 4 368 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: Gender and ture, . . Common Knowledge 112 For the text in question, see Marilyn Strathern, “No “No Strathern, Marilyn see question, in text Forthe See Stefan Hirschauer and Annemarie Mol, “Shift Mol, Annemarie and Hirschauer Stefan See – 85 . Science, Technology, and Human Values Human and Technology, Science, , ed. Carol P. MacCormack and Strathern Strathern and P. , Carol ed. MacCormack in Dutch (and yet be read): the term the yet term be read): (and in Dutch or nature in culture gender divides ago) long so not since that(though language theEnglish is It thesame. understand (what is at observed theunderstand of moment analysis).” which joins the understood (what is analyzed at the moment of observation) to the need to have vessels cut. been tiny so far but only directions, various it seeps in blood, lying on thefat opened table, also a up.Blood becomes visible. appears, little Subcutaneous mode: activist an “uncultured,” not quite able the eighties, In to talk? Strathern I in read Marilyn me into ture” that turns a woman and thus into “nature” and thus into someone have been born in should the Netherlands, I? should Why I stay caught in a “cul instance, if the Hageners have no nature and no thenculture, why, just because I of Euro- those repertoires of the others more run risk of going unheard, of being crushed, than variety inside it; still, there is no escape from the box. the from no escape is there still, it; inside variety intosub- into no more than a box among contrasting boxes (on the outside) and subdivided sites Elsewhere and notlearn can situations only Euro- what is Strathern’s License”“Binary but relates to and follows on her text. The question proliferate perspectives on “Euro- on perspectives proliferate than ethnographies our with more no do we If are? “we” who on perspectives more other than offer something analyses might ethnographic More particularly: reveals: in the operating theater a surgeon is not in the business of knowing. Hecuts. the in not business is the theater a in surgeon operating reveals: wonder: what promises are contained in other languages? other in contained are what promises wonder: I would like to call upon this situation as my ethnographic moment: “. . . a relation For learn. to much so is There do? can we all different being is yet: And The surgeon makes a cut. The patient’s makescut. aThe surgeon breached,skin yellow theis patient- of critique a constitute not does here raise to like would I question The “Euro- As longAs as it is conceptual configurationsthat analysts compareand con . With these terms what it is to be a woman (or a man) gets situated either in in either situated gets man) a (or woman a be to is whatit terms these With . boxes(on inside). the andcontain of Such frictions” a box may be“full America” (of course) is full of frictions of full is course) (of America” American social scientists and empirical philosophers who study study who philosophers empirical and scientists social American Americans. 3 — so so that 1980 Nature, Cul Nature, 20 ). . 3 ( that 1995 divide, too, is once more reiterated. If only I could write ): ): - - - geslacht lone, lone, Things and Persons on Essays Anthropological 6 Press, University Indiana ington: Universals and Particulars: An African Perspective Wiredu, Kwasi See language. Akan native his in embedded repertoires theoretical different) the (obviously of gives Oxford, at philosopher analytical an as trained 5 America,” then we risk turning our culture culture our turning risk we then America,” . .

One of my favorites is the analysis that Kwasi Wiredu, Wiredu, Kwasi that analysis the is favorites ofmy One Marilyn Strathern, Strathern, Marilyn 1999 is not similarly cut up. cut not is similarly ). about Elsewhere about

— 6

5 its many vocabularies are not not are vocabularies many its What this particular moment moment particular this What Property, Substance, and Effect: Effect: and Substance, Property, 1996 4 , but also Which makes one ). (London: Ath (London: sex about about us (Bloom Cultural Cultural from from body, - - . - - kuru back to say that it is the eating of dead bodies, brains, that particularly transmits wide again and blood may flow unhampered. flow may blood again and wide the case) this (in clamp after. is momentarily team They the surgical what is That up. opened be to are they Instead, all. at not off, closed be to not are name) a larger arteries (those large enough to be depicted in the anatomical atlas, those that have with a hot electric device. The smell of burning fleshis nasty, far worse than iodine. Still vessels the slightlylarger coagulates therefore surgeon second A blood. by vision of field of view? points irreconcilable having content with rest seem to us be will between common the ground trast, ity,” ity,” of Relativ Einstein’s Account Latour, “ABruno Relativist 7 cut. be may were in the habit of eating their dead loved ones, had a good sense of how bodies kuru doctors who went to the Papua New Guinea Highlands to research the disease of show interesting differences and similarities. paring food: from one place and moment to another, knowing) (like maycutting pre butchering, Killing, elsewhere? situations and sites other and nineties) the schemes,tual but practices of between cutting hospital Z (in the Netherlands, in (contains, is contained by) knowing. her name again?). But the knowledge does not imply equals that cutting surgical (what was nurse new the of name aboutthe knowledge scheduled; is operation gloves were bought, but they tore); knowledge about the time left before the next about the ofstrength the gloves (at some point the hospital economized, cheaper knowledge about diseases, this disease, this patient’s case, this patient; knowledge away the it, inside debris the make a small cut in its wall and through this they slide a device that allows them to clear 8 from one site to another. Then the question of its relativity arises. relativity of its question the Then another. to one site from differs knowledge constitutes what that reveal necessarily will contrasting and sclerosis and its complexities, see Annemarie Mol, Mol, Annemarie see complexities, its and sclerosis . . For an excellent way of addressing that question, see see question, that addressing of way excellent an For For further details on the surgical treatment of athero treatment on surgical the details For further Science of Studies Social from one person to another.) to one person from were given advice and assistance during autopsies by the locals who, as they As she discusses counting, Helen Verran insists on foregrounding the dif the foregrounding on Helen Verraninsists counting, discusses she As As As the knife cuts deeper, it becomes important to avoid the blurring of the surgical to need we Do question? at that short thinking our stop to But need we do Warwick Anderson tells us that the (often young and not very experienced) experienced) very not and young (often the that us tells Anderson Warwick concep not comparing start we once learned be may lessons of kind What There is a lot of knowledge in the operating theater: anatomical knowledge; 9 doctors the that is twist painful (The 18 ( 1988 atheromata, atheromata, ): ): 3 – 44 . It is cutting It is sothat the is of afterwards lumen the artery 8 The The - - . Duke University Press, Press, University Duke NC: (Durham, Practice Medical in Ontology Multiple: Body University Press, Press, University Hopkins Johns (Baltimore: Whitemen into Scientists Kuru 9 . Warwick Anderson, Anderson, Warwick — knowledge years many after 2008 femoral artery, artery, femoral . The comparing comparing The . 7 ). The Collectors of Lost Souls: Turning Turning Souls: Lost of Collectors The 2002 ). — came came to - - -

Mol • Response to Strathern 113 Press, Press, Chicago of University (Chicago: Logic African an and ence 10

. Common Knowledge 114 For the full version of her text, see Helen Verran, Helen Verran, see of her text, version Forfull the 2001 ). mathematics is non- is mathematics not situated in a single set coordinates.of X/Y They noncoherently coexist. The are they because zero, fixed shared, a to reference with compared be they can tend are not them); to natures these imagine Americans (as Euro- viewpoints various of expressions prey/predator), they norare zonian (numbers). “natures” different for room is there have mine). Instead, it is aof (kind in practice. isThis no longer aargument multicultural (you have your I culture, for toshifted the possibility arguing of interactions Rather than continuing to defend their relative equality, in her later work Verran coexist. They do not need a shared conceptual apparatus in order to be combined. included, Verran began to realize that in practice these modes of counting can laughter,own her collective the analyzed she as But incompatibilities. ceptual heard the story. they when laughed belly present everyone tension: a revealed it was not wrong, Yoruba it was This method wrong was around these. If you can roll your rope seven times round yourropes their roll then card, and your across, length centimeters isten cards 1.40make to pupils m. his taught had he of the One teachers, however, Mr. that reported Ojo, he had worked way: aindifferent compare it with the only available measuring stick: a wooden meter stick then lyingand cheap witha childrope, pieceeach of measure to were on pupils so the floor.underfunded, length measure to pupils their teach to out sent been all had teachers ferences among counting practices. ferencesamongcounting enough blood again so that, consequently, his pain would subside. However, patients with with However, patients subside. would pain his consequently, again that, so blood enough mighthave muscles his up, opened was artery femoral his once thatwas ing.hope The Yoruba numbers, while seriously different, are equally effective. equally are different, seriously while Yoruba numbers, anti- good in Then, seriously.more it took and it into looked she Yorubacounting, Verran arrived, freshly did not about know but once this, she had learned about first, At twenty. of parts divided butup, added digits, not are numbers smaller feet: and hands involves both Yoruba, counting In contrast, by three. one, two, fingers: adding by done is counting English, In mathematics. was subject The Nigeria. of Yorubaa part in teachers teaching herself found she point someat imperialist, relativist mode, relativist defense she that in imperialist, wrote articles of it, arguing These “natures” are not tied to a single viewpoint (like that of the Ama con implied the out laid meticulously Verran clash. a is there theory, In The The patient lying on the table was operated on because his right leg when hurt walk Verran relates her ethnographic moment as one where everybody everybody where one as moment ethnographic her Verranrelates Euclidian. : rolling is not like adding centimeters, one after the next. But no, Sci and therefore involved folding up units of twenty. And it 11 -

) multinatural )one: multinatural in a noncoherent practice, 11 University Press, Press, University Duke NC: (Durham, Technoscience in Object the Decentring Law, John see objects, coexisting ently 10 . Trained as a natural scientist in Australia, Trained scientistAustralia, in a as natural For a comparable, if different, analysis of noncoher of analysis different, if comparable, Fora 2002 them between ). viewed at all. And neither . The schools were were schools The . — laughed Aircraft Stories: Stories: Aircraft interactions interactions . The . - - - - University Press, Press, University Complexities in Comparing,” in Involved Complexities Some Patients: others within others always are there connections; partial and same from one situation to another. They travel and transform, we relate through here? adapt, adapt again: care practices churn, fold, clash, incorporate, and relate. Doc relate. and incorporate, clash, fold, neverstraight. is toring churn, practices care again: adapt adapt, Shift, else. something try fail, when they and, out while fora something ortry treated. Doctors may target one object, in the hope of interfering with the other, is what equal necessarily not does diagnosed is What coexist. they practice in while another, with incompatible conceptually be may technique diagnostic One table. operating the on visible becomes what with cohere not does room ing when walking.” object. ment thereason therapy walkingfor treat and operations both in implication: The so. even subside painmay don’tyour up,but open arteries your end, monthson day,for a twice hour, an half for walk you Iftherapy. walking engagein also may symptoms same the (London: Routledge, Routledge, (London: Choice Patient of Limits the and Health Care: of Logic The Mol, Annemarie See a binary. as itself present necessarily not does difference while with, dealt are way binaries the 13 12 on. feed to beings human for raised or grown being as our prey. Literally so: by far the largest of part the global biomass is currently world the of most to relate we Thus, predators. our of majority the off killed have are beings human that happens it still places, some In well. as eaters practice, in are, eyes, and aboutknowledge talk we if even of relationsrestof metabolic us, the in and kinds terms; all conceptualize nians here. licenses out the hands who not do I know since tion, relate, to combine; analyze, or is it a way to or refuse escape? I as pose a this ques thein “find” hospitalthemthearound diffracted corner? Is doingwise so way a back from Melanesia (or made in England out of what she had brought back) and . . In this context, context, this In See Annemarie Mol, “Cutting Surgeons, Walking Walking Surgeons, “Cutting Mol, Annemarie See is is “pain when walking.” But the Like other practices, those to do with eating both differ and remain the the remain and differ both eating with do to those practices, other Like Hospital practices are noncoherent. The symptom related in the consult the in related noncoherent.symptom The are practices Hospital And now, as promised in my title, I turn to the practice of practice the to turn I title, my in now, promised as And a proper Isthis way of working, to theimages that Stratherntake brought During an operation, it is “a clogged artery”; during walking therapy, it is “pain , ed. John Law and Mol (Durham, NC: Duke Duke NC: (Durham, Mol and Law John ed. , 2002 12 is by no means a fitting term for for term fitting a means no by is choice 2008 ), ), 218 ). – 57 13 There are fluiditiesand overflows,fractal complexities . object object of treatment being

14 tlefield, tlefield, tial Connections on this issue, N. B. J. Koning et al., “Long- al., et Koning J. B. N. issue, this on 15 her.from imported had we thought we that something was myself, and Law John to Strathern by ascribed kindly tivalism,” of Euro- Z.” The in framing “hospital diseases its and body the analyzed I as it on heavily drew ( Scarcity?” New or Abundance Continued Food: of Availability bal 2008 eaten; but overall, globally, but eaten; we overall, . .

See, among many other recent books and articles articles and books recent other many among See, For these terms, see, e.g., Marilyn Strathern, Strathern, Marilyn e.g., see, terms, these For 15 ): ): . Where are weare Where to gofrom 14 229 2004 is different. It is a is It different. is Science Agricultural of Journal Netherlands – 92. ). I read the earlier version of that book and and book that of version earlier the read ).I , rev. ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowan and Lit and Rowan MD: (Lanham, ed. rev. , eating . Amazo . different American “perspec American - - - - TermGlo Par 55 . 3 - - - - Mol • Response to Strathern 115 in, e.g., Michel Serres, Serres, e.g., Michel in, of Serres, those with stories/analyses de Castro’s Viveiros 16

. Common Knowledge 116 In this context, it would be interesting to compare compare to interesting be would it context, this In kind of vocabulary to write about something as complex and painful as that as painful and complex as something about write to of vocabulary kind yetwedepletemay prey.process, our the whatit.ButIn in (unequally)sharing than rather food, our over overtly more ever fighting start to likely quite are cally, something else is going on as well. That we eat so muchButpracti implies thatsimilarities. brotherly on wetime, same atthe itdraws, while identities, group between differences becomes thename of “ethnic”:fighting in is doneit often too all us, warns Strathern as days, these Conceptually, meals. cozy than this commonality this them, interact around them. around interact them, Le Parasite Le (Paris: Grasset, 1980 Grasset, (Paris:

—

we all eat weall 16 But while consensus used to be a humanist dream, ).

—

is no consolation. Commensality signals more signals nois consolation. Commensality ? - Symposium: Comparative Relativism

NON-IDENTITY POLITICS

Morten Axel Pedersen

What are “ethnic” relationships about if they do not result from any politics of identity — or from any politics of difference? These are among the questions addressed by Marilyn Strathern in her contribution to this symposium, though they are by no means the only ones she raises. Here I wish to concentrate on the theme of “ethnicity” or, more precisely, on those relations that are usually taken to concern ethnic identity but that, on Strathern’s alternative description, revolve around what might be called the politics of non-identity. For Strathern, ethnographic analysis is all about getting one’s descriptions right, which helps us to pinpoint the problem with most if not all anthropological studies of ethnicity: they are based on insufficiently scrutinized depictions (and therefore assumptions) of what a relationship is. It is on these grounds that one may judge Simon Harrison’s argument about “denied resemblances” to be flawed, despite its seemingly radical departure from conventional studies of the politics of identity.1 Harrison’s description of the genesis of conflictual social relationships rests on the pluralist (perspectivalist) assumption that the world consists of things, including individual persons, that may or may not enter into relationships with one another and that therefore can be compared according to their degree

1. Simon Harrison, “Cultural Difference as Denied Resemblance: Reconsidering Nationalism and Identity,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 45.2 (2003): 343 – 61.

117 nut Creek, CA: Altamira, Altamira, CA: Creek, nut 2 3 9 Theory Anthropological Strathern,” Intense ofMarilyn The M: Abstraction “Planet Pedersen, Axel Morten and braad Anthropological Institute Anthropological Gods,” Cuban from Evidence, inite . . . 4 Common Knowledge 118 Marilyn Strathern, Strathern, Marilyn On “recursive” analysis, see Martin Holbraad, “Def Holbraad, Martin see analysis, “recursive” On ( 2009 ): ): 3 71 – 94 possible. For what if the form of Strathern’s account is is account Strathern’sof form the Forif what possible. be might question this to answer appropriate less no perhaps but upbeat more turn “related” or turn to relations other potential all actual in are which relations, particular of enactments be to taken are entities all which universe intensive an in all, After identity.of politics the to reference with at all explained be cannot holdphenomenonmusta ethnicity that as such world. the in wereself- “relationships”) and “persons” of mutual sameness and difference, as if “sameness” and “difference” (and indeed the affirmative. the entific reasoning? entific bounds ofsci social and perspectivalist the pluralist within confined remain still forms similar to the forms of her object of study ofherofobject forms the to similar forms analytical strategy analytical study. out to is she that bifurcation, of conceptual form same analogy by parison com by comparison resemblance and perspectivist respectively, as perspectivalist or politics its the in Guinea New relationships.” but viewpoints individual not switches person a . . . relations of universe “a in muchdo. connections as The concept is meant toof convey perspectivism that, Differencesare as relational or, as similarities; put differently, divisions relate as either. granted for taken be cannot it things, between liaison of lack a denotes to anyone, notsimilar even to But themselves. so long as the concept of difference ply cannot topertain Strathern’s Melanesia, for her postplural subjects are never the the same, are and ever no identical. two things fore also between two forms of relativism forms two between forealso a with dualistconfused contrast) between forms two of comparison, and there problem(not division up aof to binary be comparativefor setting relativism, in the with explicitly most heredeals herarticle that question this addressing in is .

Partial Connections 14 Indeed, someone who, Strathern, like is wedded to “post- Myquestion now is: does Strathern’s lateral or recursive characteristically Papua in origins divided with encounterSo, ifthe migrants among urban . 1 2004 ( 2008 ). See also also See ).

— ): ): 4 93

It seems to me, though, that a somewhat different, significantly put in terms favored by Strathern by favored terms in put Journal of the Royal Royal the of Journal – 3

Strathern’s own answer to this question would probably question be in to this Strathern’sanswer own 109 —

— - (Wal rev.ed. , 1970

her deliberately rendering her ethnographic descriptions in . On “lateral” “lateral” On . Martin Hol Martin

Strathern opts for the very binary license, performs the the performs license, binary very the for opts Strathern s did not involve a politics of identity, what then was was then what identity, of politics a involve not did s - -

go beyond the limits of Euro- limits the beyond go nections 4 Press, University Princeton NJ: Banking, Lateral Alternative Currencies, Reason Maurer, Bill see analysis, .

Strathern has on several occasions (e.g., in occasions on several has Strathern ) stressed that she does not consider herself able to able to herself not consider does she that ) stressed evident, readily observable phenomena observable readily evident,

—

namely, what shedefines, between 2 Thus the concept of identity sim identity of concept the Thus

—

imply that her analysis will will heranalysis that imply —

its social mathematics? It mathematics? social its

nothing can ever remain ever can remain nothing analogous to analogous Mutual Life, Limited: Islamic Islamic Limited: Life, Mutual American thinking. American 2005 plural” analytics plural” analytics ). , more than than more , (Princeton, (Princeton, Partial - Con — one in in one - - - - rather, each person/clan/tribe was a version, extension, or analogue of every other other every of analogue or extension, person/clan/tribe. version, a was person/clan/tribe each rather, were neither similar to (resembling) nor different from (contrasting) one another; or different, same the or similar as other). Port In Moresby, persons and groups on a politics of identity and/or a politics of difference (people classify one another whereas conventional (Euro- Port in early Moresby tions the in rela intertribal that is me, to itseems implying, is For Strathern what juncture. tics inherent in these two forms of “ethnic” comparison may prove at useful this criticized. been often so have Strathern, including pologists, for which many anthro (bifurcation), of limit the conceptual us/them distinction separatednally to We set train. in the analysis might then be able to explore the capacity of bifurcations totwo bring any the conclusion logical its to take would analogy, by comparison (Melanesian) mountable(Euro- between contrast insur an presuming fashion) dualist (in of instead road, traveled less This path. relativist comparative a is it perhaps and divisions, dualist and binary between “Euro- posited bifurcations tospeak), by herself to analytical the between, for example, to be (reflexively)and seek binary to apply this samelicense, metarecursively (so she is describing? What if, in other words, we were to take literally her invitation it it 5 American Ethnologist tionsand persons first the to placein exist rela for precondition a (division)was ofidentity lack problem,for a be to selves them among resemblances lacking their consider not did migrants Highland Strathern’s in alogic account, of on rather alogicresemblance. than of analogy based, is that interaction) social further toconducive ofbeing sense the in tive self. . . . people were related.”already ( It stigmatization productive is this one with orderconnection of the signify would name the that moreover,knew somebody’s know person hadthe onename,that such aand, name knew origin enties meant that “no one [was] anonymous. . . . even if one did not immediately sev the in Moresby Port in groups migrant by oneanother on bestowed names ogists would normally consider ethnic? According to Strathern, the stereotypical work anthropol relations that for disconnections) (orsocial connections” partial state of harmony. On the contrary, Strathern implies that tension (already) existed existed (already) tension that implies between migrant groups in Port Moresby. Strathern But such tension was not (understood contrary, the On harmony. of state .

resembles Roy Wagner, “Analogic Kinship: A Daribi Example,” Example,” Daribi A Kinship: “Analogic Wagner, Roy An attempt, however attempt, to An tentative, outdraw poli and compare different the How does this logic this does How America” and “Melanesia”? and America” road should availableAnother be atfork the Euro- pluralist, (perspectivalist, the ,

4 . 4 5 ( 1977 ): ): 623

— – 42 American) ethnic relations are assumed to be based

so familiar from Strathern’s writing Strathern’s from familiar so . 1970 American) comparison byresemblance comparison and American) s were based on a politics of non- terms together, including those origi

—

whichis not to say was a in that all American) analytical form that that form analytical American)

—

of “partial “partial of identity, produc ------

Pedersen • Response to Strathern 119 6 7 1962 Press, of Chicago (Chicago: University Mind Savage The logical Institute logical Corsica,” in Belonging and . .

Common Knowledge 120 Matei Candea, “Anonymous Introductions: Identity Identity Introductions: “Anonymous Candea, Matei On On ). “universal sympathy,” see Claude Lévi- Claude see sympathy,” “universal

16.1 through peoples’ overeager attempts to communicate others’ origins (bestowing known were priori a made Port strangers Moresby in if that, say thus could One common. In opposite ways, the two ensure that people are always already related. in a perspectivist correlation of mutual non- of mutual correlation perspectivist a in worldsparallel entirely to inhabiting interact in a manner, social while remaining or could one say “state of culture” (or “state of multinature”), that enabled beings itsympathy,” much without elaboration): calls (asof “universal sort a Strathern an inevitable aspect, the tension) between the parties was based on moral analogy haveto tried case atmeasure the in hand. Instead relationship the (including, as tensiondegree andthe of sameness, which one might one (had wishedto do so) or logical correlation there wasnodegree terms, the between of mal functional for more in Put parties. between resemblance of lack (perceived) a by as) caused a binary a constitute to seem they Yetbecause concerned. is Strathern which with kind the of bifurcation conceptual of process a of outcome the like looks almost it clear- so is them between contrast the indeed, different; more be not Corsica. in community village rural a to case of non- world be identified. can Matei Candea, for instance, reports an on ethnographic the of parts different from examples similar) to (asopposed analogous unique; in Papua in New Guinea another into thing one of introduction the in as inside, leading of insertion, of sense etymological the “in introduced, being by insider an becomes outsider an precisely, encounter. More first their before even related, been always had they if as another one to appear can ers strang which in situation a ofcreating matter a is so doing discusses, Strathern that naming stereotypical of case the in as and, rhetorically; asks he insider?” entity or assemblage.”relational entity nection to emerge not though difference but before difference not though emerge to nection con for allow introductions anonymous identity, bracketing “by it, puts Candea into each other’s inquiry sense,indirect that as aIn characteristic backgrounds. whereby people slowly discover that they do have mutual acquaintances through whichsort he of“anonymous talk, calls small introduction,” is widely practiced, sophisticated a Instead them. people’sfornot do meeting ask whenfirst names (March 2010 (March At first glance, the practices described by Strathern and Candea could could Candea and Strathern by described practices the glance, first At means no by is Strathern by presented case Guinean New Papua The

— Journal of the Royal Anthropo Royal the of Journal

anonymous introduction in Corsica versus productive stereotyping stereotyping productive versus Corsica in introduction anonymous ): ): identity politics, based on his fieldwork experiences as a newcomer 119 – 3 7 .

—

Strauss, Strauss, what divides them is also something that they have in havein they that something also is them whatdivides - 8 According to Candea, the villagers deliberately deliberately villagers the Candea, to According 8 9 . .

Candea, “Anonymous Introductions,” Introductions,” “Anonymous Candea, Candea, “Anonymous Introductions,” Introductions,” “Anonymous Candea, — 7 “How might an outsider become an here, of one person into a collective collective a into person one of here, identity. it.” 6 9 123 133 . . cut that that cut - - - not ethnic stigmatization notethnic if generalization, ethnic of process sustained a Mongols) through (Halh group dominant and bigger the by as “other” classified Mongols) was (Darhad group marginal and small A difference. of politics the of case straightforward a looked like sight first on that mathematics social a around revolved visitors, and lia in the late the in lia norm. the be to expect non- any than longer much names strangers’ of exposure the names on them), Corsicans perform the same relational con trick by postponing ism Social after Mongolia Northern in Lives Political and Words 10 ence between the politics of identity and the politics of non- configuration relational quality particular the by defined is ing) dimension and scale, form, their (including relations these of terms the about everything that given down, way the all relational are myself and Candea, ern, nations). (whetherscales and social forms or social communities, preexisting individuals, among distributed to and assigned or contents arbitrarily are traits cultural ing processes of boundary making and boundary maintenance whereby contrast standard the of relations designation are results of its relations with other groups. Yet extensiveethnically group’s self- given a cases, both in word; the of sense “anti- the in relational equally are ethnicity of forms Both cerned. con be to seemed mostly have anthropologists which with ethnicity” “extensive the to opposed as ethnicity,” “intensive of instances as Mongolia, and Corsica, one say. might politics, identity an intensive scale of multiple subjectivities. multiple of scale intensive an across are they as distributed “other” themselves, toalways terms),are for they Darhadshave no identity, conventional the (in let alone sense of ethnicity these that is elsewhere,oneimplication moredetail in argue I As contexts. exchange in which cultural stereotypes played a role akin to gifts in more conventional then distributed between Darhads and non- acted as the necessary tool to extract parts of persons or parts of groups that were betterunderstood aas process of self- was Mongolia northern in place take to seemed what that inspection closer on found Moresby,I Port from data her reexamining on discovered Strathern as Still, identity. subaltern own their of basis the into turn to happy than more .

(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, forthcoming). Press, University Cornell NY: (Ithaca, Morten Axel Pedersen, Pedersen, Axel Morten An analogous case emerges from my own fieldwork in northern Mongo northern in fieldwork own my from emerges case analogous An Perhaps one could describe these three examples, from Papua New Guinea, 11 Whereas the more intensive ethnically relations by discussed Strath 1990 s,where encounters insiders between andoutsiders, or locals Not Quite Shamans: Spirit Spirit Shamans: Quite Not — variety involve symbolic symbolic involve variety Boundaries and Groups Ethnic

— in question. One final way of expressing the differ the expressing of way final One question. in

a cultural stereotype that Darhads in turn seemed turn in Darhads that stereotype cultural a differentiation. The figure of the differentiation. ofThe outsiderfigure

— 10

Darhads in a sort of ethnic economy, and, in that sense, the nonarbitrary nonarbitrary the sense, that in and, - Theirs is the ultimate case of non- ton: Little Brown, Brown, Little ton: 11 . Fredrik Barth, ed., Barth, Fredrik understanding and self- and understanding identity is to say that 1969 Corsican would would Corsican Ethnic Groups and Boundaries and Groups Ethnic ). essentialist” essentialist” ------(Bos

- Pedersen • Response to Strathern 121 Common Knowledge 122 relations renderall that practices are latter The others. into selves of insertions random non giftlike, to amount introduction anonymous and naming stereotypical in a commodity- the former amounts to economy an ethnic in which subjectivities are exchanged — aliens with those including like, alienable (random) way, while in the latter, practices of — inalienable. -

Symposium: Comparative Relativism

WHAT POLITICS?

Marilyn Strathern

Of the responses to “Binary License” — those of Bruce Kapferer, Annemarie Mol, and Morten Pedersen — the first situates the essay in a theoretical frame that reminds one of the responsibility one has for one’s words; the second, with characteristic wit, acts out some of the effects of the argument; while the third extends the ethnography to make a new analytical point. It is bracing, I may add, to have comments (in two of these cases) from colleagues who address the paper independently of the symposium’s rubric: comparative relativism. Bruce Kapferer more than generously draws the argument into a comparison, namely with Dumont’s comparative anthropology. Although this is not the place to rehearse earlier discussions, he opens with an allusion to my general approach. He comments that my work “depends on Melanesian materials” and hence that positing an “abstract universal” (the partible person, in my case; hierarchy in Dumont’s) is to see general ontological possibilities in otherwise apparently restricted data. The point is clinched with his reference to Mimica’s stun- ning account of Iqwaye mathematics. At the same time, Kapferer argues that the concept of the partible or dividual person can work as a “comparative principle” by analogy with what is more explicit in Dumont’s use of hierarchy, insofar as the concept presumes a comparison with other constructions of personhood. So it did not just spring from Melanesia after all (and my work, for what it is worth, does not depend on Melanesia alone)! Of course, the concept came from my hav-

123 Common Knowledge 124 of the argument about bifurcation and the question she poses coexist with the enactment of its critical opposite, “multiplicity.” Mol’s enactment exclusion. and (class) inclusion havecourse, changed: things many have learned bethat can lifestyle a matter of Of too. other the in lethargic, or energetic, as spherewereone in lethargic, or alsofor local the elite connections. and People village their who were true energetic, is which parallel, in associations rural and urban their held Hagen from migrants rural that seemed it while long a for tribesmen, or townsmen to As to which to pay attention in a world that sees itself needy of “conflict resolution.” modalities of relationship? may not Ethnicity be the only ubiquitous descriptive other altogether elicit “globalization,”of they did harbingers or relocation and observe that modes of relating (here, (here, relating of modes that observe Helen (after Verran) Molto prompts mathematics another natures: different for here? choose which analytical route to go down been revisited in accounts of African diaspora. The perspectivalist can always understanding of their mixed backgrounds; it is an epoch that has comparative no a doubtat work to often had Zambians where mines copper the of reminder one. enact cannot it relativism), its ofpower the is (thatone analogical or perspectivist a imagine can viewpoint say. towhatmight wanttolisten they But perspectivalist a while their where even “us,” are we too, “us” be Melanesia to For us form. in this worldtake not do the about people presumptions that point vantage perspectivalist a Now too. it “us” from is are They onmattering. (and there) happened what goes anthropological the accounts of that region contemporary. happens What there materials and one I have made my own indeed involves constantly toreturning Melanesian right. isall There are many contexts which in that might to do, be a good thing that but differences), overcomes brotherhood (common diversity in unity find to Euro- would contrast whatthat seem(s)maneuver (thecomparative best the way to underpin describe) hegemonicdisconnection and Melanesian and connection way done with). never (and “Melanesia” if onepart, is working away at of the language description, the job is never done versals” or “principles.” Other people seem Ibetter atFor than these things. my “uni as such formulae to writing my in detects rightly Kapferer that wariness ofEuro- someunderstanding implied turn in ing to find a language of descriptionin vernacular Euro-

— While a perspectivalist viewpoint cannot enact a perspectivist one, it can perspectivist a enact cannot viewpoint perspectivalist a While I liked the reference to the Rhodes- However,Kapferer’sby insightthe intofor fortified its Iam commentary American conceptions of It conceptions relations. is a Euro- American

make a scintillating example. Across noncoherent practices, there is room — not just for inspiration, though that is reward enough, but to keep keep to but enough, reward is that though inspiration, for just not counting

— Livingstone Institute tradition and the

were these experiences of dislocation ) do not need a shared conceptual do) not conceptual need shared a American. So I would extend the the wouldextend I So American. American move, of course, move, of course, American American sources, which

—

where to go from - when is caught the learning up apparatuses in of description, and then language of ways learning, Formany are there of act writing. while the implicatedin are view in order to interact; the writer is only stuck in “points of view” because they of one not points does which need share toin contexts many Thereweare are. surgeon’s) scientist’s the the (rather with than predicament where of describing now holds. practice or idea me to of what independent action the force clear It not is at others? all from bywhich persons grow and establish themselvesthemselves separating through techniques the all cover to appropriate term same the not Is “cutting”? a also is nosebleed a through oneself cleansing or eyes washing which in concepts, of nexus Melanesian this in sense, a not there is But novice’sback. a bloody that perfectly acceptable figure of speechinthe inEnglish, than case theofincisions onefrom off another, themselves a itself of case cutting the in persons phorically meta more much speaking be to appears one that is language English the of effect An growth. male with doto practices Papua NewGuinean diverse from are through the imprint of (the totemic) you crocodile’swho show to teeth. These examplesback come the of skin the across deeply dug are grooves when as mark, own its left that tocutting mightbleeding secondary be again, But, then septum. nasal the piercing from come might blood the Or passage. nasal each to conception, you might induce a copious nosebleed by forcing a long cane down sheddingblood, mentcontributionin isamaternal which had tomanifested be detach suppose Or seen. had you women’s the of rid things get to stream tain world, you might be made abrasive leaves to a in wash your with eyes cold moun woman’sa discard and yourself of parts feminine shed to had you man a be to another. one from off themselves cutting to persons speaks act how toask this wish also might we theater, operating the in on going is what exactly To know cutting. one another, termsofin Melanesian gender I could constructs, as well have said from themselves dividing persons to Forreferring in ofcutting! practices pare com to insight an What argument. seamless a been had then to up what open might we theater, splitting birfurcation, intellectual of act operating the to the speaks act in howthis ask on to wish going is what exactly know to But Fine. ist). severed. is This hardly a matter of a point of view or (perspectivalist perspectiv ismade to split open of apatient’s part the body, flesh the separated than rather long. so for described are they how by affected not are acts which in sense the be to seems practices apparatus orderin to be combined. is What held thein juxtaposition of acts and We can ask where we go from here, but the anthropologist also struggles struggles also Wewherehere, anthropologist ask but wefrom go the can Suppose that cutting people off from one another were routinized, and that any event, In Mol on insists theaction of her incision surgeon An cutting.

—

although, obviously, she holds the question of description at bay only - - - - -

Strathern • Final Comments 125 1 . Common Knowledge 126 Sarah Green, personal communication, communication, personal Green, Sarah of it. of depictions hegemonic modern outside Balkans the for does Green Sarah tally inciden as (no identity, no Darhads ethnicity), move at forthe one point evasive in the situation altogether for characterizing deploysHarrison the term up to its hilt, I would prefer now to avoid “ethnicity” ever, the concept as expunging in of “property” from some of where my writing How ofoneentity). types two or entities, (two way either go could vocabulary analytical the course, Of implied. is disposition shared a if extensive, and sive inten ofethnicity, forms two are there ofPedersen’s that comment implications the from Yet back insight. draw might I analytical an in this clinches identity” distance. and macy there are practices that make no such requirement: if transaction (interchange (interchange transaction if requirement: such no make that practices are there contrast the with requirement for coherence in description, Noble observes that Incidentally,by lethal. be ofcourse Forforworse:orentanglementscan better Australians.) with contact” doubt “first in Hageners’ in very tellingly was bility and as that painful even better: “But in what kind of vocabulary to it write puts Mol aboutinnocent. be something ascannot complexwrites or speaks one which from position the capable of generating relations in order to activate relations with them. with relations activate order to in relations capableofgenerating Noble Brian foot, how other peopledescribes youthat need only toare assume entangle the thus and Black Canadian the to relation to, one another. In respect between, with ment of persons relations of inalienability the in lies points ersen sameness says, that made no automatic correlation between degree of tension and degree of identities, which is the curse ofof much hierarchy identity a politics.into It them was lock a not mode, does as Pedersenthat strangers treating of mode a into insight namely insight, lost the for but reasons conservation for not is regret activist’s The momentum. no have to seems regret a does; movementforward of image an as much as appeal not does lost is what showing course, Of sion. dimen group a with conflicts to identity ethnic ascribe they when as ethnicity, about Papuatotalk without, well as as ofNew people Guinea part within from move to show just what is lost by the ubiquitous contemporary readiness, on the MortenPedersen develops so compellingly. Yes, I had hoped it “activist” was an question. final 1 Crystallizing the migrants’Crystallizing innovations as engaging “the politics of non If not a politics of identity, then what politics? One answer to which Ped that issue the precisely is here, from go we where change, for hope The

—

another curse of primitive Euro- of anotherprimitive curse ?” and there is an urgency to her “that.” I am glad it was hergladit her was “that.”to am I urgency an is there ?”and 2005 . gist Anthropolo American Exchange,” Knowledge Traditional of Facts the for Search WIPO’s and Transfers Tipi foot 2 . Brian Noble, “Justice, Transaction, Translation: Black Translation: Transaction, Noble, Brian “Justice,

109 . 2 ( 2007 1970 American visionsof circles of American inti ): ): 338 s Moresby. Pedersen makes this – 49 , at 343 . 2 (Capa ------

pinpoint a bifurcation. Bifurcation is nothing to be ashamed of. ashamed be to nothing is Bifurcation bifurcation. a pinpoint License”); subsequenttension to holdin with “Binary wouldusage in this tobe three accounts bring out just how contextual the stability we give terms is. Before Before is. terms give we stability the I used Mol, for example, contextual how just out bring accounts three Mongolia. Darhads’ the be like in practice to write about Hagen migrants while aboutwriting Corsica or itwouldwhat workanother,through butto through aboutonething knowing imagine to notjust is invitation Perhaps the similarity. or ofdifference terms in coherentato reckoning accountaspiring relievedfinal is of any anthropologist the idea of different of kinds politics differentwith than of kinds ethnicity.) The nonidentitypolitics. must (It be a political choice on tomy be part happier with of exemplars parallel butas it, from far practices, social presentcommensurate that examples as not materials, Mongolian and Corsican both produces ersen Suppose, to call my bluff, onelimits. seeksthese observe not insteaddoes that way a in a object relation its and analysis of ofform the analogy? Here Ped between isomorphism perspectivalist the redescribing then and limits within world. the of views outside with dealings agencies, then there is no problem about incommensurate governs means) each what on (dwelling translation than rather parties) between There is something still to say about being responsible for one’s words. All write to means it what recognizing first proposes ingeniously Pedersen and and multiple as in arithmetic (theremultiplicity is a trace -

Strathern • Final Comments 127 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 anthropology as consisting essentially of (a) a theory of peoples’ ontological autodetermination 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 relation to our unrelenting determination that the world continue to revolve around

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 Symposium: Comparative Relativism

ENDO/EXO

Matei Candea

In recent years, anthropologists have increasingly admonished each other to “take seriously” the people they work with. And yet the moral valence of “taking seriously” has often been clearer than its precise meaning. One crucial achievement of Eduardo Viveiros de Castro’s article here is to infuse this phrase with a convincing, theoretically sophisticated, and precise content — and in the process to produce a characteristically exhilarating account of the anthropological endeavor, one that takes forward and refines the author’s previous definition of anthropology as “the science of the self-determination of the world’s peoples.”1 I must declare an interest here and, in so doing, delineate a specific public for which “Zeno and the Art of Anthropology” will be of particular importance. I am an anthropologist working in Europe (among other places), and as a result my admiration for Viveiros de Castro’s work has always been accompanied by a slight uneasiness under one particular heading: the idea that the anthropological endeavor is properly that of engaging with non-Euro-American ontologies has left me with the apprehension that anthropologists who, in some respect or another, are probing European or American forms of life, having grimly fought their way into the relative acceptance of the discipline in the 1980s, would once again end up out in the cold. I think that this article — and its definition of seriousness —

1. Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, And (Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 2003).

146 principally concerned with exo- concernedwith principally allowsone to envisage a more outcome. hopeful Although Viveiros de is Castro his his call for us to get away from “where we are,” from “the suffocation of the self we must that things the of all “almost specific: quite is author latter,the the seriously. About some visionsseriously we that pointsout,requires not other taking visions take ance” but a precise and controlled instance of ViveirosAs asymmetry. de Castro and the old relativism: relationism is not some loose form of generalized “toler between Viveiros de distinction Castro’s crucial the bemissing new relationism oneinto salist self- falls and thus the from course to transpose to project this the classic critique of relativism (articulated which he is made to stand). Our naive (or falsely naive) for “vision” reader would of be trying multiculturalist liberal, Western, the (and Rorty Richard namely tro’s commitment to “taking seriously” does not extend to a more intimate other, gestion. The comment a is naive this: reader might object that Viveiros de Cas the the byofself,of which other verification other’s the possiblekind world. other, the verify This to explicate to desire the self-a as seriously” “taking author casts the Deleuze,on Drawing sense. new this in seriously” “taking of condition very the is belief of problematic relativist traditional the of suspension people’sthe beliefs.”Indeed, equate not does here seriously” “taking ofto what the believing in truth people say, however, any more it than means “respecting Crucially, seriously.” take cannot Western intellectuals which that seriously “taking to commitment the project: anthropological Castro’s de Viveiros of antidefinition precise the provides own our from toofar are that seriously “visions” totake refusal Rorty’s nocentrism. (of sorts). anthropology endo- an of value particular and specificity the articulate to which with tools they say is to be taken. be to is say they order to allow the people themselves to the specify conditions under which what self- “ontological of authorwhatenabling elsewhere apractice the has as described recalls ously” sions of them alien thought as “Taking possibilities.” and to seri deciding sustain seriously, by contrast, involves the possible from “refraining actualizing expres world own of our or mere Takingfantasy. reality it eitherinto the resolving by normal course of social interaction,” dissolves the possibility of the other’s world 2 . Viveiros de Castro, de Castro, Viveiros However, Viveiros de Castro’s suspicion of liberal Western intellectuals, sug a and comment a add to wish I argument, rousing and elegant Tothis eth avowed Rorty’s Richard of critique vigorous a with begins article The Theatetus not take seriously are near to or inside of us.” orinside to near are seriously take determination”: refraining from either assent or critique, in in critique, or assent either from refraining determination”: And onward); namely, that it can accept any vision except a univer a except vision any accept can it that namely, onward); , 18 2 . anthropology in this essay, he also gives us the the us essay,gives healso this in anthropology contradiction.However, ourwouldnaive critic — crucially — imposed suspension of suspension imposed is what occurs “in the the “in is what occurs

,” ------

Candea • Response to Viveiros de Castro 147 81 Refutation Charge,” Refutation 3 .

– Common Knowledge 148 Barbara Herrnstein Smith, “Unloading the Self- the “Unloading Smith, Herrnstein Barbara 95 . (or far from us). from (orfar “theirs” and us) to close (or “ours” as identified procedurally are that visions of treatment the in asymmetry pivotal and sustained a is charge”) refutation “self- usual the from immune it renders(and relativism from project Castro’s pos Deleuze’s as just rejected, and anthropology. of a definition and provides sible world verified is verified is world possible Rorty’s contrary, the Deleuze are not taken seriously notDeleuze are taken and Rorty Amazonians, the Unlike treatment. such for) to stands he tradition intellectual antihumanist Western the with (along Deleuze for)and stands he the author subjects Rorty (along with the Western liberal, multiculturalist vision position, his with Consistent intercourse). intellectual (and interactions social and that of the “ontological determination of the self.” the of determination “ontological the of that and project ofthe “ontological between self- distance immeasurable him- peopleunto a is person each that world’s ofnation the peoples,” problem “the notes that author is here the justly autodetermi ontological “the statement about earlier his upon refinement tant impor very a is what In possibility. hopeful and precise more a us offers reading careful a elsewhere, and Western Bank” “the between divisions sweeping such “Euro- resistant to the thought line thatcould this straightforwardly be betweendrawn behavior amongresearch who scientists Britishanimal study datehas been on identity and relationality Corsica, in and I now am conducting interests ethnographic own My project. entire the enables that far, and close them, and us between distinction pivotal the locate might whereone is course, of raised, thus question else.” crucial everyone The hand, onehand, people whose beliefs one legitimatelycan challenge and, ontheother authorrace putsinto, it: human the onis“toto anthropologist divide the bean the as Or relationality. anthropological specifically a and possibility) of state a in leaving (whichmeans seriously” “taking is latter, there the with interaction; social normal and disbelief) and belief disagreement, and agreement involves own, or reject as fantasies as reject or own, resolve andinto falsehoods, truths those we agree or disagree adoptwith, as our we those explication, to subject dowe those precisely are seriously nottake do we things the seriousness, of Castro’sderedefinition Viveiros On think. might reader naive our what of opposite the exact the is that here meaning technical a acquired has (ourselves)seriously taking not that forget us make not should Common Knowledge To reiterate this somewhat convoluted point: what separates Viveiros de Viveiros separates what point: convoluted somewhat Tothis reiterate While the While rhetoric of Viveiros de Castro’s article does occasionally suggest Americans” (or “moderns,” or “the West”) and everyone else. everyone (or and West”) “moderns,” “the or Americans” 3 Within the former sphere, there is intellectual debate(which intellectual is sphere,there former the Within

2 . (Fall (Fall 2

— 1993

in other words, those with which we have normal normal have we which with those words, other in ): ):

—

not left in a state of sustained possibility. On stateofanot sustained in left 4 .

Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, personal communication. personal de Castro, Viveiros Eduardo or herself.” This caveat makes clear the the clear makes caveatherself.” or This 4 The latter (as when people

—

most of my work to to work my of most

—

make me make rather determination” determination” - - - tity politics (I myself had doneso). had myself (I politics tity “And”( essay his in author’sdiscussion the of continuation a as argument new this of importance the Hence with. begin to is, “they” the who deciding from refraining involve crucially must case the is say they what which under conditions the specify peopleto allowing deal), actually pologists anthro which with cases all not if most means suspect I (which these as such cases In mothers. or teachers, Mediterraneans, Europeans, as me to spoke and worlds either of those notin did live Others myself. like Frencha being citizen of version a just was Corsican being Forothers, recognition. anthropological) being Corsican involved significant stabledifferences that required political (and should take them seriously too. For some of the people I worked with in Corsica, “a” within all, people, tion. there After are always precondi a be, not should or not, is but former the of consequence a be well ofaround themselvesboundaries the “a” essentialize people or “a” mayculture) Press, Press, University Indiana (Bloomington: Fieldwork and edge, 5 peoples world’s self- ontological of the science a for proposal earlier Castro’s of“one’s people” own the constitutive impossibility of endo- nal” differences seriously (that is, asking “internal to what?”) ultimately highlights theseshores. “inter to farther sail as one difference might inTaking findsetting much as just finds oneitwere, “inward,” as WesternBank the from off Starting to in keep ourthesights firmly problematic ofthenature endo/exo contrast itself. oretical airing”? I think the greatest contribution of endo- an exo- how question: might endo- an symmetrical the raises turn in claim this matters.” However, really that sense the in ‘field’science or door exo- that airing theoretical the on me,toagenda,therefore, dependfortoseems . multiple . . crucially reasons anthropology,a desideratum today that endo- authentic ofan viability “The writes: Castro de Viveiros proposal). my to toplay andimportantspecific arole very (herefrom ammy comment I moving so- the for room leaves seriously” ing interrogation. under always are of “they”) a authornotes, conditions the of of possibility a “we” (and I would add, therefore, evenless so, therefore, at level the such “theas of West.” metaconstructs the As not rely on the prior stabilization of difference at the level of peoples or cultures; home” constantly comes up against: there is always more difference within! But within! moredifference always is there against: up comes home”constantly . Matei Candea, Candea, Matei 2010 I would argue that this shift from “ontological self- “ontological from shift this that argue would I anthropology? What, in other words, is What, complement/obversethe anthropology? of “the ). was easy to misread as aligned with strategic essentialism and iden and essentialism strategic with aligned as misread to easy was Corsican Fragments: Difference, Knowl Difference, Fragments: Corsican

—

an impossibility that any ethnographer supposedly “at supposedly ethnographer any that impossibility an anthropology has always enabled, it being an out an being it enabled, always has anthropology 5 But “taking seriously,” But “taking as defined here, does anthropology as a straightforward account called project of “anthropology at home”at “anthropology of project called fi ndsitself at top the of disciplinary the - other people, and anthropology determination” to “tak to determination” anthropology might be anthropology fertilize fertilize anthropology determination of the determination 2003 ). Viveiros de Viveiros ). ------

Candea • Response to Viveiros de Castro 149 Common Knowledge 150 the line between those visions we visions those between line the endo- ever- the return, In table. anthropological togift endo- Castro’sde Viveiros is This unveiling. critical usual the to them subjecting or what we thought was simply “us,” instead of either taking these worlds for granted anthropological: the commitment to taking seriously the multiplicities internal to Art of Anthropology” gives us an excellent account of what makes such endeavors the of and “Zeno question. kinds these just U.K. raises the in scientists orwith incarnations). itsvarious Workingschoolteachers in with liberalism, Corsica in some an including exo- that us, to close are that things of sorts all seriously take to us requires that task a placeof tradition the anthropologicaltask, Western an remains antihumanism) might one it, of out or landscape, that in where indeed, (and two the between differences important the rhetorical out very bea powerful device,but figuring perspective) Western between andNazis might intellectuals liberal Amazonian assume we know where that is. For instance, pointing out similarities (from an to us leads easily too definition a such crucial, is from” start we“where to tion things). other many among anthropology, underscores that the endo/exo contrast is not point a starting but an outcome (of to is never fixed or self- or fixed never is to it must be an ever- an be it must impossibility cannotthis be taken as axiomatic, a reason to abandon the project: This corrective is useful because, while defining the discipline by opposi by discipline the defining while because, useful is corrective This anthropology offers a salutary reminder, that restof discipline, to a salutary the offers the anthropology anthropologists: a new language in which to claim their place at the repeated attempt, an ever- an attempt, repeated evident. anthropology cannot take seriously (suchseriously take as cannot Western anthropology ought to seriously take and those we ought not repeated experiment (and failure) of (andfailure) experiment repeated repeated failure, which forcefully forcefully which failure, repeated -

Symposium: Comparative Relativism

Of Archipelagos and Arrows

Debbora Battaglia

Eduardo Viveiros de Castro’s Amazonian perspectivism is beautiful to think with: a bricolage of lapidary refractions, ethnographically and theoretically precise, magic friendly. Indeed, the essay is so artfully wrought that its radical politics could easily be missed. Partly, the matter traces to Deleuze, the author’s favorite philosopher-interlocutor, whose philosophy of values can make trouble for political theorists. Davide Panagia discusses how Jacques Ranciere, for example, cannot conceive of mobilizing political opposition in a world imagined as “in process, an archipelago . . . of loose uncemented stones where every element has a value in itself but also in relation to others.”1 How can one imagine pushing back against such a world’s floating elements of “indistinct” value, particularly in view of certain value structures’ disempowering effects on other, incompatible structures? It is not a bad question; only it is a delimiting one. Panagia makes the point from political philosophy: the political act is aesthetic at the start, an act of “partitioning of sensation that divides the body and its organs of sense perception and assigns to them corresponding postures of attention” in culturally specific ways.2

1. Gilles Deleuze, “Bartleby; or, the Formula,” in Essays: 2. Davide Panagia, “The Political Life of Sensation: On Critical and Clinical, trans. Daniel W. Smith (Minneapolis: Disinterest, Disfiguration, and Dissensus” (paper, annual University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 71. See also Jacques meeting of the American Political Science Association, Ranciere, The Flesh of Words: The Politics of Writing, trans. Chicago, August 30, 2007), 2, www.allacademic.com/ Charlotte Mandell (Stanford, CA: Stanford University meta/p211482_index.html; emphasis mine. Press, 2004).

151 ton University Press, Press, University ton Prince NJ: (Princeton, World Third the of Unmaking and 3 . Common Knowledge 152 Arturo Escobar, Escobar, Arturo appears to be resistance to the unsettled complexity of the notion of a sensation- a of notion the of complexity unsettled the to resistance be to appears deeply, there more But, situation. this for accountable partly course, of are, paradigms and “development”ofdiscourse prominence current The activists. event- transformative. and transforming are values, their movements, such inapt; be would parts puzzle of together fitting movementa a as such Understanding their history resistthe building of a dam that would have flooded their land technologiesorderoppressorsappropriated ofits and in to traditions visual the toturn the famous Kayapo resistance movement, which gathered bits of its many Escobar’s,ofdisorientation. regimes Mythoughts,like aesthetic by posed risks with indistinctions can only be attentive to disorientation and, in particular, to the project Deleuzean the of exceeding or of areader a“doubling” was as level, experience my another moments. On other ofprogression as moments a other knowledge taken than encountering stuttering to resistance up putting vignettes the between in spaces the reading, of habits “world of act analogic an conventional subvert to spaced are vignettes thought ing.”its level,one on describes, So, it what is essay the own), his (including ideas other in mixing and attends, Deleuze which to ideas many up Taking object. tice, and on another level by his decision to fashion his essay as a Deleuzean back notions back notions these the undoing of master structures and narratives. and structures master of undoing the these magic” in immersion and from alienation and group, and self times, cal flash that performances) ritual and art vernacular Left, to orthodox science, and to the and state,Right of formations shapesideological Western to itselfresistance inAmerindian that popular bar practices (such as Indeed, it is Esco tenet an established of such as postdevelopment Arturo theorists successful political action that Amerindians themselves would recognize as such. consciousnessof recombinant nobevalue, there can Viveirosargues, de Castro worlds.material Withoutabouttheir foractors relations matters in whatreally andbricolage Amerindian against prevailing political programs that would deny objects. ethnographic other with encounter of range its thereby and ontology” project ofits foreclose could “speculative that out the stops and going after controlling elements within and outside the inquiry of de“fieldCastro geophilosophy.” is theof pulling effect anotherdirection, In of agency to which might they relate modernity: in instantiation for an Viveiros Encountering Development: The Making Development: Encountering 1995 In this context, one wonders why alternative solidarities that form in the the in form that solidarities onewondersalternative why context, this In Viveiros de Castro makes this point by way of Amerindian logic and prac and logic of way Amerindian by point this makes deCastro Viveiros In short, I read this article as an invitation to deploy Deleuzean assemblage assemblage deploy to Deleuzean invitation an as article this read I short, In time of bricolage are apparently so threatening to political theorists and and theorists political to threatening so apparently are bricolage of time ), ), 220

. — to which Amazonians attend Amazonians which to

and would have rendered the Kayapo unrecognizable to themselves. into the many forms and voices and sites — in one direction, an effect of folding folding of effect an direction, one in

“back and forth between histori between forth and “back 3 A world so shot through through shotworld so A

—

theiteration of — making making - - - - Karpo, a Tibetan Sacred Mountain in Yunnan Province,” Inner Province,” Asia Yunnan in Mountain Sacred Tibetan a Karpo, Khawa around Fortune of Perspective the and Bodies 4 “perspectival multinaturalism” and that its mission is one ofone is mission its that and multinaturalism” “perspectival for statement mission of kind a offers essay his that accept we If relationship. care mutual a recognize they which with and potential exchange attribute over temporalities over Viveiros forthat de ing spatializations Castro’s the tends to favor perspectivism experienced from from experienced comparativestatement of somewherewhat from is view like the else, but as also valueexercise tothe repeating at sites, other thoughethnographic not a as only from Western or Westernized to Amazonian ontology, there is a clear and certain tion that do not take seriously, for example, the formations”“multinatural ofWesterniza programs from control wresting involve would so Doing selves. control over other words, to proposes people’sessay to his transfer them futures close fore the I/we possibility of will our putting Neither questions to you adjudicate. to just as you refuse put I/we them here. to us.” comfort In of moments your of course. Understand Amazonia, in yourself here.differently Judge yourself by dares to address Western philosophical inquiry in these terms: “You are welcome essay His lives. sensorium) the through also sense (and a in anthropology field where demonstrates new comparatively are they that so insights ethnographic understand. already they believe people “poverty,”which as such constructs reified to than more much realms, seen as well as unseen in awareness reflexive of workings the to and agency of locations complex to example, for attention, view.” of “point draws It sensitive horizon at sunrise, what they see is the action of spirits withdrawing their spears spears their withdrawing spirits of action the is see they what sunrise, at horizon the from outward vanishing ofsunlight rays the watch islanders When drawn. with are objects invisible or visible as also, bodies from moveaway Butarrows heart”). my ipoi”pierces (“It “Hatieu murmur, may speech a or song beautiful painfully a to listening Someone moon. the “pierced” by being of effect an are someone.” find youwill and from came arrow wherethe lookto . . . somewhere get will you and pointing is of the most ubiquitous images of effective intentionality. . . . look where the arrow The Amerindian arrow is the “archetypal mediator of action at a distance and one On this point, I confess to a deep fascination with the essay’s discourse on arrows. A actors nonhuman . Semiosis of Arrows Giovanni da Col, “The View from from View “The Col, da Giovanni Thus,aesthetico- in In the Melanesian island region where I have worked, menstrual cramps cramps menstrual worked, have I where region island Melanesian the In

9 . 2 ( 2007 ): ): 215

somewhen

— — – 35

makes with regard to Yunnan Tibetans. Yunnan to regard with makes to which the Amazonians engaged by Viveiros de Castro Castro de Viveiros by engaged Amazonians the which to . politicalterms, Viveiros de Castro’s rearrangement of else. This is a point that Giovanni da Col da Giovanni is a that point This else. Somewhen : Events, Events, : 4 conversionreversal — correct taking taking

—

the the - - - - -

Battaglia • Response to Viveiros de Castro 153 American Ethnologist Research,” Anthropological of Future the on Reflections 5 . Common Knowledge 154 See Karen Sykes, “My Aim Is True: Postnostalgic Postnostalgic True: Is Aim “My Sykes, Karen See stimulation of personal memory cannot be merely an accident. an merely be cannot memory of personal stimulation pens, through close encounters with elements of my own ethnographic past. The hap so it and, archipelago own its through journey the enjoying for space ing breath create vignettes between gaps The all. at chance no stand “periphery” or “core” like structures thought modern valued; weightedor differentially being of chance no stand vignettes thought his numbering, of parataxis the Against orto accept memory that (for, argument is an if so, it is a colonizing argument). memorable. apparent and ground this makes de Castro’s arrow or ceases only in relation to active this field.Among its otherfunctions,Viveiros from the ground if you iswill, not (in short) to be overlooked: seriality continues preparations, the best intentions and The skills. perspective from inside the gap, tract. Not least, there is the gap too large, which defeats even the most thoughtful breach the a one of fear of and the con marks success, that a social animates that gap the is there outcomes.) Further, coauthors (Nature opposite. the or draft, a bird may erupt from the blind, or the arrow be sucked down to earth by a down course(an ambush is example). an contingencies: there are likewise natural And interference harborplanned that arrow’sblinds toas the hoped-for suchthings of reality the brought by pressures alleviates arrow The courses. from past point (formallyrefigured course materially) and than toward future a other something does archetype arrow But it.the Deleuzewouldcall as mism, archetype. of the realm the We in are chance. another be will there sender: has too little power behind it, or if it has too much power and back curves on the ineffective is arrow Nothis ifmatter purpose. a arrow the ofsending effort lendingthe to arrow promises seriality, portends consequentiality. The gaze follows its launch, the follow: must arrows other template, the of archetype, the of influence the somewhere for looking both ways: look backward, and you see someone; forward, and you see the sign ofdelivered, the cause ofthe arrow in is As Amazonia, and pain sickness. sorcerer’s have victim’s the the arrows body from the poison orthat the arrows withdraw to healer’s workis A scene. resurrection a sun: the of body the from said, said, “my is aim true,” on Earth. for life conditions the creating night, from day for the islanders I lived with; their separation, as told in mythic narratives, divided

30 . 1 His essay is memorable for its refusal to structure evenness of attention attention of evenness structure to refusal its memorablefor is essay His a arrow marks This possible world of intentionality guided Viveiros de Castro’s arrows anticipate their being effective. It need only be ( 2003 — ): ): — 156 if there are structural defects, or if it lands wide of the mark, or if it if or mark, the of wide itlands if or defects, structural are there if or again, or again, – 72 . and so it shall be shall it so and somewhen . The sun and moon are the original timepieces

— if not this time, if then notanother time. time, this — gaps.There are of critical ofopti critical 5 Under - - - -

Symposium: Comparative Relativism

VÚJÀ DE AND THE QUINTESSENTIALISTS’ GUILD

Roy Wagner

On a sunny afternoon the Reverend Kenneth Mesplay was riding his motorcycle through Pelia Village at Karimui. An extraordinarily gifted individual (he eventually became a shaman), Mesplay had a muted reputation for being an authority on oversize, ill-defined male beings inhabiting the world above. He was flagged down by a group of men casually lounging about the center of the village and smoking their characteristic long, tubular bamboo tobacco pipes:

Excuse me, sir, but we believe that there is a very large man up there, smoking a bamboo pipe just like this one. He is so large, and the sky so difficult to see through, that all we can see is the lit end of the tobacco- roll inserted in the end of his pipe. Very slowly, as the day progresses, he moves the pipe in an arc across the sky, like this (demonstrating), and we take that motion to be the movement of the sun.

Mesplay said something at once encouraging and dismissive, like “I think that is a very good idea,” and rode on. Still, the main point of relativity has never been put quite so well. (Einstein might have said the same thing about his pipe), and the idea floated that day has never been reported on or even alluded to before or since by any person, foreign or indigenous to the area. Pelia is a large community of mixed Daribi and Pawaiian extraction, located near the lower edge of Karimui

155 Common Knowledge 156 ogy cosmol Pawaiian) possibly (and Daribi commonplace or conventional more The The Pelia Metacosmology time. that use at in arrows unfletched characteristic the with once the home of the “fast gun of Pelia,” a man was reputedand intelligences torefined behighly some for ablereputation local a has toIt hit airstrip. any target of experience, as compare one part of experience with another as a denominate culture proportion: double de Castro, and myself as “quintessentialists” and rest my chiasmatic case on this tures counts (and counts ought masterpiece to his have called ofkind chiasmatic cross-cousin of the other. Thus, Lévi- of it. deal great a is there that fact the from apart haveable tosay about Pawaiians what tothe learn this, actually speakers Pawaiian inveterate that assert speakers absolute terms). Daribi (in “unworks” that essentialism cal ofradi form contrastive a it“unlearnable,” calling by language Pawaiian ofthe andDaribi sometimes and Pawaiialinguists, themselves, the significance mimic Both terms). relative (in “works” that essentialism comparative of form malist people) people) with language. Daribi mimic the sounds of Pawaiian speech in itcalling (and the cosmology, time into Pawaiian I bigger would trouble, this run some apocryphal thought of it later or would have thought of it otherwise. ifAnd I todid elicittry self- very a with least, at to strike a compromise between them a control the information that the Pelia, being a “hybrid” population, were forced pare it with the Daribi one and thus essentialize two different “cultures,” using as scenario. above the with connected never almost in the morning after sunrise and dark again after sunset are taken for granted and dental(read: “important only to white men”). grows light sky The that the facts inci as regarded are those motions, other have objects the that them to clear is intoit. Those most are their motions, important people the say, and although it themoon, sun, and “andstars, also the clouds,” come out of and the sky go back nally shot the sun and moon into orbit with their bows. Celestial objects, such as People ( People Sky the called beings some live it of side other the on dome; a like earth the over (takaru sky the this: like

— ). I should like to think of Lévi- That is the trouble with both comparativism and essentialism: each is a is each essentialism: and comparativism both with trouble the is That Of course, if there really were a different Pawaiian cosmology, I could com could I cosmology, Pawaiian different a were really there if course, Of

or, at least, the one I was told whenever I asked about it “ takaru- Yasa,”

bidi and Pawaiians do the same in calling the Daribi “Hari,” a mini a “Hari,” Daribi the calling in same the do Pawaiians and ), including Iwai and Mawa, the two cross- two the Mawa, and Iwai ), including As well compare one denominate culture with another as a part part a as another with culture denominate one compare well As ) is a semitransparent and permeable membrane stretched conscious outsider present, and who knows what they they what knows who and present, outsider conscious Strauss, Marilyn Strathern, Eduardo Viveiros

— never stop

a compromise lasting for one afternoon, talking; unfortunately, no one talking; is The Elementary Kinship of Struc Kinship The Elementary Strauss is right on both

cousins who origi cousins —

goes something ------. imitate it so it imitate close to what Richard Dawkins calls close the to calls what Dawkins Richard soon there aare lot pretty more of them). Notice perilouslywe that coming are that well so another imitates body the of part one which in instance, for sex, also thoughtAll is imitation, in other words, but not imitationall is thought (there is the time even the mention even orthe thought of time an the of most that so nonexistence, its of proof no also is there existence, its of proof to remember about thing die- the important The death. after depersonalized is body a Daribi, the to according which would be a contradiction in terms (though what else is a chiasmus?), since, literally,word “die-the means, guage, lan Daribi the In exchange.) this witnessed time, the at me Watson,visiting itthe “We call answer: the get to death?” existent soul, ghost, or other spiritual essence that survives/does not after survive rhetorical. as well as social talk that backturns on itself as it is spoken”) and claim it is the secret of all power, get a rise out of the Daribi, who call this kind of syllogistic logic a porigi languages living speak people dead all therefore languages, squarely on the (question) mark and like, say something essentialist an course, Of grammar. and syntax, rhetoric, their of details the examines one when out candidobservation that theDaribi are a basically negative people, which checks the make to was officer later A patrol unbeliefs. about their literal very being ply mean what really the patrol officertook itto andthethat mean, Daribi weresim faces disappear.” It took me several decades to realize that this statement does not dead the and that ‘simply death, go after into ground,’the and their survives that who live to the west, insist that there is no soul or Daribi, ghost the or station, otherthe of spiritual east essence the to living people Pawaiian the “Unlike that, experi Karimui the in involved ence, after all. The essentialism very first patrol officerstationed indigenous of atKarimui wrote sort in a his is notes there Perhaps Chiasmatic Afterlife own. no of fault their through and language; (utterly) fact unspeakable, in speaker has ever been known to do), they would have not only an unlearnable, but matter. So if Pawaiians learned to speak Daribi well perfectly (a no Daribi thing both of these alternatives are clearly copresent every time the subject comes up. comes subject the time every copresent clearly are alternatives of these both of relative essentialism or (b) a relative proof of absolute nonessentialism, since The next question we need to ask is whether this behavior is (a) an absolute proof near- panic, and they dowill toalmost ridanything themselves of the possibility. All I had to do was ask some Daribi informants, “What do you call this non this call you do “What informants, Daribi some ask was do to had I All

well that you have no hope of second guessing it would put it that way. itput A that person is that, although thereisabsolutely personisthat, no person.”Itnot “dead does mean person,” meme izibidi izibidi , that which imitates your efforts to quintessentialist .” (The ethnographer James B. B. James .”ethnographer (The will send people into a state of of state a into people send will . This claim would surely would surely claim This . All All living people speak dead

— would hit the nail would nail hitthe

nor it you, for that (“the (“the - - - -

Wagner • Response to Viveiros de Castro 157 Common Knowledge 158 ( “soul- individuals are there that told was I itself. death of fact mula among aborigines,the Australian who use it as a standard reference for the for a to relegated is ground” the into “Going me. to explained was death after year the later, in decades several Karimui not reincarnate. did and then dumping a on pyramid top of it), just to make sure the corpse stayed dead and shaft, a into it lowering cases, boxlike Chinese of series a in it sealing and body the wrapping them, embalming the dead, (eviscerating ofmummification wondereddid not whole the go through whether process ancient the Egyptians whether it is who the children eat them or the rats.” For my I own part, have often sweet potato around the house for my children who have died, but I can never tell bitsof leaveI little that eloquently:true “Itis ofvery Pelia matter once put the themselves themselves peopleing to one another.” of that, telling course, anthropologists started After tell stories sat campfire the around “Back in beginning, the but anthropologists: nothing in deal must themselves stories then stories, in deal anthropologists If findhimselfdisturbed the by relativity ofhis coordinatesystems to oneanother. would he observer, the of instead particle the wereone’s Heisenberg aim(s). If the of mind.) to come also on follow.must they movie (The time,” who show the way to initiates by “terraforming” the track through life that creator- those like is hunter transformed The [ animals game and birds body- [orientational] the send to able is he and it, knew once he as intimately as him over, knows it hunt to used he that terrain the Well, was once that a hunter by name, and that now he that become has “Kebinugiai”? call we one the there, over peak mountain Youthat see the possibilitywith of its nonexistence (“and of all that fear vain”). in A them threatens italso for existence, its of possibility the with Daribi threatens creatures disoriented and easy to kill. to easy and disoriented creatures the find and bows their with out go to able be will they so night, at buru- I only learned there was a second part to this problem when I returned to to problem returned I when this to part second a was there learned only I the say can we that simple so not is situation the words, other In This structure, too, This structure, is a chiasmus, or rather it is the figure- persons”) who not only “go into the ground” but become an actual part part actual an become but ground” the “go into only not who persons”) hoa izibidi , “place- , apart chiasmus, in which uncertainty gives way to the dead certainty of deadcertainty the to way gives uncertainty which in chiasmus, . soul”) of the living landscape afterward: landscape living of the soul”) puru- noma Field of Dreams of Field ’] to living hunters in their dreams dreams hunters their in to’] living 2000 and thenovel Kinsella it was based heroes of the Australian “dream Australian the of heroes , when “going into the ground” ground” the “going wheninto , souls of souls called called

hoabidi ground reversal (literally (literally

resident resident izibidi - - -

to do so, can explain: can so, do to a trickster who is so good othersat becausetricking he must trick himself worse (one has to be crazy to know about it, and then one really does not care). Coyote, it(not be). to we want where GreatEgg of languages?), but we have all good aidea pretty of where the it is going from (hatched from coming is languages our of any exactly, where, mine to self- emerge (thetheir from languages’) soadept are that people(theat they using that people) languages never are able those of one like profession, the to hegemonic and “institutionalized” is that cross- a is result The future. the in sometime again memory of form objective truly and antithetical some by replaced be will faculties tal the subjective with the objective, in the vain hope that one’s uncertain men how, or when, why. or able recall to being without before, something anthropologist . . . . . anthropologist an astory, telling anthropologist telling or an astory as Therenois thing such and That Makes Things Hard to Follow” “The Anthropologist Wants to Be the Figure as Well as the Ground, of Nebraska Press, Press, of Nebraska 2 1 among up made secretly have anthropologists the which culture, one dard “essentialism”); of or comparison (they else this there is call only (absolute) only stan the is anthropology world, and the around located cultures, (relative) many great a are there Either possibilities. distinct Coyote ers way that in The consequent persisted imago will. of if youproofs, “culture” stratificational mism, that served as objective indicators (“survivals”) of past evolutionary stages, ani like concepts ritual, the like bow, behaviors the like objects “traits,” tural the by concept, so- culture the of articulation professional first anthropology’s cognate with what I have elsewhere called “antitwinning.” things just just things that thought we “Shucks, language: a is it knowing never and wholelives their Anthropology again.” There as is such also a thing . . Nancy Sue Ammerman, personal communication. personal Ammerman, Sue Nancy Roy Wagner, Roy

called evolutionary anthropologists, had to do with the objectification of cul of objectification the with do to had anthropologists, evolutionary called — : “Well, little man, it goes like this: in relative terms we have two two have we terms relative in this: like it goes man, little “Well, :

Further, no one is quite certain as to the exact etiology of schizophrenia schizophrenia of etiology exact the to as certain quite is oneno Further, short, one In one, loses small bigthe the deliberately in picture confusing like one of those memory glitches, in which one is certain one has seen seen has one certain is one which in glitches, memory those of one like — — object the happened as essentially the figure- the essentially as Coyote Anthropology Coyote despite the scathing critiques of Alexander Goldenweiser and oth Goldenweiser and of Alexander critiques scathing despite the 2010 ). anything that way” that (say,see you it acollection) museum in will is certain that (Lincoln: University University (Lincoln: . There There .

—

Yogi Berra called this trope “déjà vu all over all “déjàvu trope this called YogiBerra vújà de vújà is such a thing as people using a language language a using people as thing a such ground reversal of déjà vu. déjà of reversal ground 1 consciousness. No consciousness. one is able to deter , which is described , in my which is described book ley: University of California Press, Press, of California University ley: 3 .

See Roy Wagner,See disciplinary schizophrenia schizophrenia disciplinary 3 Let me illustrate: illustrate: me Let - An Anthropology of the Subject the of Anthropology An 2 The idea is is idea The

Coyote 2001 - - - - - ).

(Berke

- Wagner • Response to Viveiros de Castro 159 Common Knowledge 160 the Quintessentialists’ Guild.” Quintessentialists’ the of sanction official the as for it degree a get then and fieldwork their in it prove to themselves to obliged who are students, graduate for second the reserve and large, at public the and undergraduates to possibilities these of first the fieldwork. teach You ethnological on publications of other peoples (the of tribes nonanthropologists) through the medium neverthemselves, one ceaseteaching another about, and project upon even numbers detest and notdodrains have Daribi the But since disturbances. tropical other comes equator the actually ( while atall, drain the down not go does and solid frozen is poles ( hemispheres, southern and northern respective the in twist ( form: this in two- nasty those of one is part of the landscape, or the landscape becomes part of the anthropologist. This a itmakes that is other the or tence and nonexistence at the same time. The problem choosingwith either one so a makes of kind lights, one may may one lights, one’s to according Thus, done. be may this ways inappropriate or appropriate oneof kind relationship, which consists simply relating in to people whatever in stock- the are which tion), more, the relationships can be classified be can relationships more,the config combinations, and world. Further the around found be may that “systems” permutations kinship known the ure their in that, relationships kin of number large a is there that sociologists, and somehelp psychologists from with selves, the days of Morgan, Henry Lewis many anthropologists have persuaded them Since chiasmus. way,a its is in so, And within.” from wound a is “A child this: neither the Vorlon nor the anthropologists, but from the Daribi, and it goes like from comes boards, sounding sociocultural and emotional, physical, all across doubt all have I kinship finest everthe observation on heard, thatone resonates beyond is what But missing. goes often sword the of edge third the so threes, would arelative,in came beeven relativeandcross-cousins crosserifthey than could bemore nothing course Of truth)? the to has do with asked what kinship the truth three- in Straczinski Vorlon(cited J.Michael by saying mechanisms The problem with embracing both of these alternatives at once is that doing Butsome there includingthat ismyself, only other insist anthropologists, What has the truth to do with with do to truth the has What edged sword; there is your side, there is the other side, and then there is is there then side,and other the is side,there your is there sword; edged .” , we had best content ourselves with a three- a with content ourselves best had we , — 1 and and and turned into kinship diagrams (Morgan’s one original inven (Morgan’s oneoriginal diagrams kinship into turned and overrelate izibidi 2 ) although the water goes down the drain with a different different a with drain the down water goes the although ) of the profession part analogies that can only have a four- a have only can that analogies part (exaggerate the protocols, as in authority relations), relations), authority in as protocols, the (exaggerate in- up trade of the comparativist kinship expert. kinship comparativist of the trade the owing drain, to the frequency ofand tsunamis hoabidi instead: either the anthropologist becomes becomes anthropologist the either instead: kinship

— —

threatening people both its with threatening exis that is, reduced to cultural ordering ordering cultural reducedto is, that (pace David Schneider, who only only who Schneider, David (pace Babylon Five Babylon part analogy, as in this this in as analogy, part ):a is“Knowledge 3 ) the water at the atthe water the ) part conclusion, conclusion, part 4 ) the water at - - - - -

but Only to See Itself “The One You See in the Mirror, That Borrows Your Whole Act of Looking, obviation). mutual their (for other each deny they as as much quite definitions) to immortality. The divine need hypotheses two each other (for their own self- to Fred Hoyle’s Steady State hypothesis as the paradox of the deceased person is self- and origins cosmic problem nal about of metacosmology, edge” truth “third we following have the word: “to anticipate and dispose of.” Taking this definition backuniverse to symbolic our origi methodical application methodical ity - s i m 4 ( else’s imitation or nonmemory, something it? enoughitis in someplace Or yourself toidentify before, it sothat familiar is image that seen have you knowing of déjàvu memory,of the expression itan Is a statementbe about worldofrest the the seem to thereby and making parentheses inverted hoodin self- equally schizophrenic double of take Here kinship? we again, have one of those figure- the what relationship isthe Still, them. between believing closelyactually andthen of reality, Piaget whichconstruction is a trick learned too by children watching symbolic a find to approach dofavorexpects I an ofthat all Monstrosity. Least not of putting together,things as in a construction (set) or a Social Durkheimian that the approach I prefer is a matter of making distinctions (telling things apart), appreciate can anyone relate.”Butnot “onecannot out, pointed once Bateson Gregory As relationship. of theme single the on variations doing be only still of the mirror, the part of of part the mirror, the cannotsee itself directly it that way a such in evolved has vision of field human the Since parentheses? another, placing the rest of the world body feels inside feeling/seeing of Are itself? and seeing/feeling reversed on one joined at the hip, like Siamese in twins, a chiasmatic counterpose to the way your that no one else ever will see? the rightAre of your left and the left of your right totality oforganic picture (sidedness),a oflaterality giving polarity the reverse object (mirror, pool of water,of pool camera) or (mirror, object .

Roy Wagner,Roy : this statement fairly defines quintessentialism. Elsewhere I have called its its called have I Elsewhere quintessentialism. defines fairly statement this : e t a l e r enacting paradoxes like the the like paradoxes enacting Culture is to kinship as the chiasmus is to the nonsymbolic construction of unreal of construction thenonsymbolic to is thechiasmus as kinship to is Culture not relate not or relations), joking (as in ground reversal of culture and its apparent mirror imaging in the the in imaging mirror apparent its and culture of reversal ground Anthropology of the Subject the of Anthropology — it as as . ”

— 4 maintenance: George Gamow’s Big Bang hypothesis is is hypothesis Gamow’s Big George Bang maintenance:

obviation — its vision beyond the edges of your reality

its application to practically everything in our arcane arcane our in everything applicationits topractically

notsee itself without themediation of some external izibidi . , drawing on the dictionary definition of the of definition dictionary the on drawing ,

— , placing the enigma of deceased person deceased of enigma the placing ,

the part of your vision beyond the edges —

then the the then vújà de vújà at all (as in avoidance relations), yet ) of the not-) of the vújà de that is certain it will it will isthat certain you, since mirrors mirrors you, since

—

in in inverted

- - -

Wagner • Response to Viveiros de Castro 161 Common Knowledge 162 orientation (Castaneda’s “assemblage- the like but, ofcritiques, critiques is not to more accumulate more facts, more theories, of critiques or theories, even poetry, of and its poetry anthropology. The of purpose anthropological writing its of demands anthropology that state quintessential the level, naive very a to at all, even to conceive of itof conceive to even all, at logical positivism, pseudo word be made music.” made be word “let Aphrodite,” foam, and writes, the “Remain Osip same the thing. Mandelstam figure- someday, the again you see do so either But alike. if a metaphor could conceit poetical its intellectual- asserting the or like anthropologists, and cultures “Ammerman’s Gap” sible,between like have we again Here happenstance.” figure- as unbelievable those of one word your take it that but / are you thinks it not are They symbolic. Piaget’s childlike phrase) the assignments of knower and known, which are merely done to the subject. They are active participations that do not “conserve for” (in ogy, are not passive reflections theon subject ofanthropology, but rather things anthropol to applied are they when evoking, been have I kind ofthe operations are vu and vu , the quintessential you (as outpointed Jacqueslong ago). Lacan quintessential the , Chiasmatic As As I once wrote in a poem about Kali, who by her own self- vújà de vújà

— simultaneously (four-

and if its(or poetry conceit) had no voice, we would be reduced to being ethical melodrama, or worse. To deal with this problem as things (digital) but becoming (digital) things not a problem, one has to strip one’s thinking down down one’s thinking strip to has oneproblem, a think, as think, an agency in and of itself, we could not ground reversals of the possible and the impos the and possible the of reversals ground hoabidi ground reversal of the you, you, the of reversal ground armed is forewarned): “No metaphor is what point”) ,to move theor fixate reader’spoint of property rights overproperty author and reader

—

to make subject and object be one things (analogue). things is definition is déjà who you really - - Symposium: Comparative Relativism

ZENOS WAKE

Eduardo Viveiros de Castro

Translated by Ashley Lebner

While reading the comments on “Zeno and the Art of Anthropology,” I could not help but associate each with one with the various mythical arrows that I evoked in my essay. Matei Candea’s is an arrow I did see coming, as it moves within an intermittent dialogue that we have been having for some time now on the relations between endo- and exo-anthropology. And his comments do hit the target as they deftly connect the two margins or worlds between which anthropology deploys itself — showing, on the one hand, how the connection is precisely what creates the two margins (insofar as it tells them apart) and, on the other hand, how it makes the distinction relative (insofar as it makes any distinction indefi- nitely iterative). It does not matter which “way” we move, whether inward or outward, anthropology will always bring us elsewhere. Debbora Battaglia’s comment reflexively focuses on the gaps: the gaps that open between the four vignettes in my text (four arrows that do not form a continuous trajectory), the gaps that open between intention and effect (epistemology and politics), between space and time (somewhere and somewhen), and within time itself (past and future). It is as if the gaps, Battaglia suggests, were what make the arrow dis-locate, in the double sense of moving forward and hitting an unforeseen target (which includes missing the target altogether). After all, contingency is “just” the meeting of two — but of

163 contextualized (see the original textual environment). textual original the (see contextualized 1 . Common Knowledge 164 Except for Michaux’s formula, which is utterly self-(de) is utterly which formula, for Michaux’s Except tion does not imply its cancellation; if an auto- is This well very put. I into the contrast would ques only that bringing emphasize betweenendo- exo- Wagner’s comment once more), to make them become Wagner’s them more), once comment make to to make subject and object be one and the same thing” same the oneand be object and subject make to [is] . . . writing anthropological of purpose “the which to according definition, privilegedaccess. That decision isonly one the isthat consistent Wagner’s with invariant (“nature”) to which the epistemology of the anthropologist would have ontological an surrounding variations (“cultural”) epistemological many so to alterity decision not reduceto anthropological analytical refersthe to term the peoples world’s the of status ontological the to refernot does anthropology by studied Candea for observing how the “ontological autodetermination” of the collectives rela “comparative your sense)! there’s another yet (in Now tivism” sense). another (in relativist a as stigmatized one(in me,sense), its antirelativism radical in author an from coming normally ent (in other words, not altogether different). The formula seemed interesting to somewhat differ was meaning its that where Idiscovered article, original the in people. Amazonian an Not believing what I read, I went tothe quotation verify to support atrociously certain ethnocentric positions concerning the “beliefs” of reading it for the timefirstin a bookthat should gounnamed, where it wascited course there is always a third a always is there course passage was taken out of context. taken was passage this formulas, three other the with As anthropology. of antidefinition useful a toiscoin mya phrase, problem. simply Rorty’s assertion seemed to encapsulate do credo,of not it which, political both of overlyistrue, his excite me; but this, author’s or philosophy, of the it representative however, is statement, because lar particu that choose not did I fashion. critical aggressively an in treated one only tinence respect with to Richard Rorty. Of the four “formulas” quoted, is his the of calculus.) infrastructure semiotic the as ation it arrow. obvi obviational us reconstituted as (Let imagine a unguent, powerfully magical quintessential, a on rubbing after and, bits microreferential into down hunter inept the of weapon the to did myth Amazonian the of frog figure- there is the vertiginous Roy Wagner’s comment, which besides performing a anthropology, and his answer is: by constantly questioning the contrast contrast the questioning constantly by is: answer his and anthropology, Candea asks about the means by which endo- which by means the about asks Candea As for the substance of the three comments on my essay, I thank Matei Matei thank I essay, my on comments three the of substance the for As Rereading my article, I must confess that I squirmed a little at my imper at my little a squirmed I that confess must I article, my Rereading , but rather to the ground reversal of my metaphors, did to my text what the supernatural supernatural the what text my to did metaphors, my of reversal ground and exo- popular ,reconceived “not [as] point but aoutcome.” starting an

— origin of the ontologies we study. In other words,

1 independent causal “trajectories.” And finally, finally, And “trajectories.” causal independent Or better, its original context, for me, was my my for was me, context, original its better, Or anthropology is, strictly speaking, anthropology can fertilize fertilize can anthropology one and the same thing. same the one and

—

or rather (relying on (relying rather or

—

broke it broke ------orvariational impossible, this does not make alterity indeterminable in butturn, merely motile Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Hall, Prentice NJ: Cliffs, 2 “somewhere” perspectivism insightful remarks on the contrast between my tendency to spatialize indigenous welcome her also I text. same the in sees Candea that “controlledasymmetry” the to close very be to seems reversal” ism’.”“conversion a of Toidea her me, multinatural ‘perspectival for statement mission of kind a “offers indeed piece the astute; is text current the to relationship its Noting perspectivism. indian has not already been radically obviated by it? by obviated radically been already not has questions. of interesting number a raises which else”), contrastitself is spatialor ethnographic (“what from viewsomewhere isthe like non- Absolutely. ofanthropology.” soul somewhere,very said the “digression,notis relativity, if which demand time for rumination and space for digression. And, as Wagner has Culture of Wagner’s to allusions repletewith is ofAnthropology” Art the and course Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Guattari, Félix and Deleuze Gilles course of see “concept,” vs. “figure” .”On . . culture. through fixed, the fixed, Very true; again, though, I would merely add that once the line is “procedurally” ought It is the study of bricolage through bricolage. through of bricolage study the It is that makes concept (subject) and figure (object) become “one andpractice knowledge a the imagination, same thing.”conceptual of margins atthe and ofscience a is Anthropology capable. is science minor authentic an only which of ment on?) we are side side(which the “object” of its on definitively ogy bricoleur and engineer. between That contrast locates anthropol line Straussian Lévi- the with science state)(or royal and science minor between contrast Deleuzo- the connect to line rhizomatic unexpected an tracing our Deleuzeanassemblage bricolage” and Amerindian tandem. in Doing so permits quintessentialism. dural) self- much pretty becomes 3 Press, University York: Columbia (New losophy? Wagner’s text in the first person, there is another Amer another thereis person, first Wagner’s the in text . . Cf. Roy Wagner, Roy Cf. Incidentally, while Coyote the Trickster appears in in appears Trickster the Coyote while Incidentally, Amazonian versions of perspectivism. Battaglia is perfectly aware that this aware this that isperfectly Battaglia versions of perspectivism. Amazonian to take seriously and those we oughtwe those and seriously take to Battaglia brings to themes from my brings the discussion workBattaglia previous on Amer Finally, what can I say aboutsayIFinally, whatWagner’s can haveorIsaidnot that already text I welcome Battaglia’s reading of my article “as an invitation to deploy deploy to invitation an “as article my of reading Battaglia’s welcome I trans. Janis Tomlinson and Graham Burchell III III Burchell Graham and Tomlinson Janis trans. . But his current text brings a wealth of new elements for reflection, reflection, for elements new of wealth a brings text current his But . or the the or outcome

— —

—

and the principally temporal principally and the (“somewhen”) inscription of other (Englewood (Englewood Culture of Invention The whatit visionswe dealwayswas, those between jure. “Theline

reflected in my “Zeno” essay in a metatheoretical emphasis in in on “Zeno”my a reflectedmetatheoretical essay 1975 ), ), (those visions that we ought to take seriously) seriously) take to ought we that visions (those outside 34 evident. It is essentially a matter of tactical (proce tactical of matter a essentially is It evident. : “We study culture 1994 What Is Phi Is What ). 3 not No mystery here, seeing that “Zeno - - 2 to is never fixed or self- or neverfixed is to Smoking Mirror.” See Olivier, See Mirror.” Olivier, Smoking ( doubles animal favourite the one was coyote of “the remarked, Olivier as Guilhem And of thing Mirror” Smoking of the “Lord Aztec the Tezcatlipoca, Wagner’s comment: shadow on disquieting who his projects character indian ses of an Aztec God Aztec an of ses sity Press of Colorado, of Colorado, Press sity and and smoke , trans. Michel Besson (Boulder: Univer (Boulder: Besson Michel trans. , — mirrors the patron, then, of speculation, “a speculation, of then, patron, the — 2003 The Invention Invention The an achieve an Guattarian Guattarian ), ), ,” as the author reminds us. us. reminds author the ,”as evident.” 32 nahualli Mockeries and Metamorpho and Mockeries . ) of the Lord of the the of Lord the of ) ------Viveiros de Castro • Final Comments 165 Common Knowledge is published three times World Wide Web a year by Duke University Press (905 W. Visit Duke University Press Journals at Main St., Suite 18B, Durham, NC 27701) in www.dukeupress.edu/journals. association with Bar-Ilan University. Permissions The Common Knowledge community Photocopies for course or research use that thanks Bar-Ilan University for its support, are supplied to the end user at no cost and especially President Moshe Kaveh, may be made without explicit permission or Rector Haim Taitelbaum, Dean Joel fee. Photocopies that are provided to Walters, English Department chair Sharon the end user for a fee may not be made Armon-Lotem, and Faculty of Humanities without payment of permission fees to administrative director Efraim Singer. Duke University Press. Address requests for permission to republish copyrighted Submissions material to Rights and Permissions Common Knowledge publishes work in the Manager, [email protected]. humanities, intellectual history, the arts, and social sciences that redeﬁnes divisive Advertisements terms and ﬁgures of the past and present Direct inquiries about advertising to in ways that make expanded sympathies Journals Advertising Coordinator, possible. Potential contributors should send [email protected]. a letter of inquiry to the Editors, Common Knowledge, Faculty of Humanities, Bar-Ilan Distribution University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel. Common Knowledge is distributed by Ubiquity Distributors, 607 DeGraw St., Subscriptions Brooklyn, NY 11217; phone: 718-875-5491; Direct all orders to Duke University Press, fax: 718-875-8047. Journals Customer Service, 905 W. Main St., Suite 18B, Durham, NC 27701. Annual Indexing subscription rates: print-plus-electronic Articles appearing in the journal are institutions, $136; print-only institutions, abstracted and indexed in Academic Search $130; e-only institutions, $114; individuals, Premier, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, $27; students, $18. For information on Current Abstracts, Humanities International subscriptions to the e-Duke Journals Index, Literature Online, Scopus, SocINDEX, Scholarly Collections through HighWire and Sociological Abstracts. Press, see www.dukeupress.edu/eduke collection. Print subscriptions: add $11 © 2011 by Duke University Press postage and 5% GST for Canada; add $14 ISSN 0961-754x postage outside the U.S. and Canada. Back volumes: institutions, $130. Single issues: institutions, $43; individuals, $12. For more information, contact Duke University Press Journals at 888-651-0122 (toll-free in the U.S. and Canada) or 919-688-5134; [email protected].