Schools and Styles of Anthropological Theory II

Edited by Matei Candea
'In this highly original contribution, leading anthropological scholars from the University
of Cambridge provide a new and compelling approach to the history of anthropological
ideas.... Insightfui, succinct but aJso consistently challenging, I expect that these essays will
inspire students of anthropology for years to come.'
Adam Reed, Universit}' of StAfidrews, UK
'A useful antidote to the presentism of much current anthropological theorizing, this rich
and variegated collection - which takes account of some of the deepest roots and freshest
sprigs - especially reflects the influential view of the discipline from the venerable
Cambridge tradition, which displays in these pages an impressively global and historically
comprehensive reach.'
Michael Herzfeld,Harvard Unwersit)', USA
Schools and Styles of Anthropological
Theory
This book presents an overvievv of important currents of thought in social and cultural
anthropology, from the 19th century to the present. It introduces readers to the origins,
context and continuing relevance of a fascinating and exciting kaleidoscope of ideas that
have transformed the humanities and social sciences,and the way we understand ourselves
and the societies we live in today.
Each chapter provides a thorough yet engaging introduction to a particular theoretical
school,style or conceptual issue.Together they build up to a detailed and comprehensive
criticai introduction to the most salient areas of the field.The introduction reflects on the
substantive themes which tie the chapters together and on what the very notions of
'theory'and'theoretical school'bring to our understanding ofanthropology as a discipline.
The book tracks a core lecture series given at Cambridge University and is essential
reading for ali undergraduate students undertaking a course on anthropological theory or
the history of anthropological thought. It will also be useful more broadly for students of
social and cultural anthropology, sociology, human geography and cognate disciplines in
the social sciences and humanities.
Matei Candea is a Lecturer in the Department ofSocial Anthropology at the University

of Cambridge, UK.
Schools and Styles of
Anthropological Theory
Edited by Matei Candea
13 Routiedge
Taylor&FrancIsCroup
LONDON AND NEW YORK
First published 2018
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Parle,Abingdon,Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Roudedge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Rjoutledge is an imprint ofthe Taylor & Franás Group, an informa busittess
© 2018 selection and editorial matter. Matei Candea;individual chapters,
the contributors
The right of Matei Candea to be identified as the author of the editorial

material,and ofthe authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted
in accoidance with sections 77 and 78 ofthe Copyright,Designs and
PatentsAct 1988.
Ali rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,or other means, now
known or hereafter invented,including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
íiom the publishers.
Trademark noticc. Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks,and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Uhrary Cataloguitig-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN:978-1-138-22971-6 (hbk)
ISBN:978-1-138-22972-3(pbk)
ISBN:978-1-315-38826-7 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Sunrise Setting Ltd,Brixham, UK
Contents
List offigures ix
Introduction: Echoes of a conversation 1

MATEI CANDEA
1 Severed roots: Evolurionism, difFusionism and

(structural-)funcrionalism 18
MATEI CANDEA
2 Structuralism 60
RUPERT STASCH
3 Marxism and neo-Marxism 79

CAROLINE HUMPHREY
4 From transacrionalism to practice theory 91

david sneath
5 Anthropology and history 108

SUSAN BAYLY
6 From the extended-case method to multi-sited ethnography

(and back) 121
HARRI ENGLUND
7 Cognitive anthropology as epistemological critique 134

richard d.g.irvine
8 Interpretive cultural anthropology: Geertz and his

'writing-culture' critics 148
JAMES LAIDLAW
vili Contents
9 The Frankfurt School, criticai theory and anthropology 159

CHRISTOS LYNTERIS
10 The anthropological lives of Michel Foucault 173

JAMES LAIDLAW
11 From 'the body'to 'embodiment', with help from phenomenology 185

MARYON MCDONALD
12 Feminist anthropology and the quesrion of gender 195

JESSICAJOHNSON
13 No actor, no network, no theory:Bruno Latour's anthropology

of the modems 209
MATEI CANDEA
14 The ontological turn: School or style? 224

PAOLO HEYWOOD
15 Persons and partible persons 236

MARILYN STRATHERN
Index 247
Figures
1.1 Residence and avoidance 27

1.2 Political system 42
1.3 Kinship system 43
1.4 A conceptual skeleton 43
2.1 Contrasts between selected English vowel phonemes 62
2.2 Linguistic structure as diíFerentiation ofmuck' 63
2.3 Two portrayals of the primacy of relations in the makeup of a
linguistic system 64
2.4 Materna! uncle and sisters son 66
2.5 A value polarity of Crow life in the 1860s 70
Introduction
Echoes of a conversation
Mote/' Candea
What ís this book?
This book provides an overview of important currents of thought in social and cultural
anthropology from the 19th century to the present. It offers a broad introduction to key
theoretical schools and styles ofthis extended period.It gives some sense oftheir historical
context and their interconnections and points ofoverlap.The primary focus is on develop-
ments in British, and to a lesser extent,American and French anthropological traditions,
although the chapters also demonstrate the progressive interweaving of these traditions
over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries. It will introduce readers to a fascinating
and exciting kaleidoscope of ideas that have transformed the humanities and social
sciences, and the way we ali understand ourselves and the societies we live in today.The
theories examined in these pages engage with some of the most fundamental questions
anthropologists continue to ask today: What, if any, sort of ffeedom do human beings
have? How can we explain and understand the regularities and the patterned nature ofour
coUective lives? What is culture and what is society? What can our bodies, our minds and
our technologies do,and what happens in their interaction? What are the sources, mean-
ings and effects of the differences — in terms of identity, perspective or power — that run
between and within human coUectives? Is there a place for the study of non-humans in
anthropology?
The chapters in this book track a longstanding core lecture series given at Cambridge
University for social anthropology students,entided'Schools and Styles ofAnthropological
Theory'.While the lecture series is primarily aimed at undergraduates, it is attended by
Masters students, and is often also audited by doctoral students. The aim of the lecture
series is to provide a broad, accessible yet relatively sophisticated introduction to anthro
pological theory, and this is also the main aim of this book.
This book engages with the classic anthropological 'isms'(evolutionism, difíusionism,
functionalism, structural-functionalism, structuralism, transactionalism, neo-Marxism,
interpretivism, feminism, postcolonialism), frequently identified theories and theoretical
schools (the Frankfurt School, the Manchester School, practice theory, actor-network
theory), classic and more recent moments of theoretical rupture (the 'writing culture'
moment, the ontological turn), and more difíuse reflections around particular conceptual
problems such as the problem of historical thinking in anthropology (see chapter 5), the
question of the extension and boundaries of fieldsites (see chapter 6) and the distinctive
dynamics ofthe shaping and reshaping ofanthropological concepts (see chapter 15).AH of
the above are treated here, albeit not ali at chapter length or in the form of self-contained
2 Matei Candea
sketches.A number ofchapters weave together accounts of shifts, tensions and transform-
adons between two or more ofthe above,and some chapters rcturn to the sanic school or
style from difíerent perspectives; most notably, for instance, postcolonial critiques in
anthropology are evoked in chapters 1,5,6 and 12,rather than bcing subsunicd in a single
chapter. I will return to the organisation of the book and the chapters bclow.
While 'schools and styles' are its primary organising devicc, howcver, this book is not
simply a list oftheories. It is also a collective reflection on what anthropological theory is
and how it changes.The authors in this book propose different explicit and iinplicit answers
to that question.In this and in other ways,this book is best thought ofits a convcrsation — at
times an argument - rather than a single narrative.
The section 'Views from Cambridge?' gives some more background on the origin of
this book and reflects on the particular kind of perspective on theory that is iniplied by a
book based on a lecture course in one particular department. l he four sections after this
delve into more fundamental questions concerning what theory is and how to think
about it.Along the way they elucidate some of the organisation of this book. Before we
begin,however,one very general question needs to be answered especially — but not only —
with undergraduate readers of this book in mind:Why bother engaging with the history
ofanthropological theory at ali?
On learning to see theory

In some students, the very thought of a'theory course' or a book based on such a course,
will induce despondency or terror. Partly under the influence of increasing modularity in
undergraduate teaching and with an attentive eye to students as custorners whose tastes
must be catered for, anthropological courses and introductions to anthropology have
tended to veer towards catchy topics and titles. Sex and death, mystery and inequality, the
strangest practices made familiar and your unexamined everyday life niade strange: anthro
pology provides all of this in droves, and this is often where students are invited to begin.
Theory,by contrast,seems tedious,lifeless and irrelevant; old theories even more so.Theory
also seems,by contrast to those catchy topics and cases, essentially ciifftcult.
Theory, this book will demonstrate, is none of these things. And this is true, crucially,
because 'theory' is not a single, free-standing thing at all.Theories come in many shapes
and sizes,and in anthropology at least,they are always intimately interwoven with practice
and with particulars.Theory is already there,at the heart ofthe more immediately attractive
or relevant-seeming arguments and cases with which students first encounter anthropology.
Like Molière's character Monsieur Jourdain, who was surprised to be told that he had all
his life been speaking in prose,readers ofthis book will swiftly realise that they have been
doing theory all along.
Of course, this observation could lead to rendering theory meaningless in a different
way. As I describe below, some recent schools of thought in anthropology and beyond
would seek to do away with 'theory' altogether as a distinct topic. This book, by contrast,
proposes that theory,as a distinct focus ofstudy,still has an important role to play. Focusing
on theory allows one to make explicit the conceptual issues that structure and underlie
anthropological discussions and debates, and to see how these have shifted and changed
through time. This overview of debates empowers newcomers to anthropology — and
indeed seasoned anthropologists engaging upon a new topic or field of research - by
allowing them to situate the works they encounter within a broader historical and
Introductíon 3
discursive landscape. Learning to recognise the distinctive clues that suggest an author is
writing in a particular school or style of thinking means learning to see their accounts,
descriptions and cases as arguments,rather than simply statements offact or articles offaith.
It will be invaluable in helping students to critically detect assumptions, blind spots and
shortcuts in the texts they read.But this work is not entirely negative.The criticai exercise
of detecting theoretical assumptions is just one of the skills that comes with a thorough
knowledge of the history of theory,Another is that ofimagining how,and to what effect,
two radically different theoretical perspectives might apply to the same body of material.
This,in turn.is the first step in learning to budd one's own distinctive theoretical arguments.
There is a broader point here concerning the use of theory, and the use of this book,
for the attention not only of newcomers to anthropology, but also for graduate students
or indeed professional anthropologists embarking upon an original research project.
A handful of the theories engaged in this book are Úvely contemporary positions that
anthropologists writing today might explicitly espouse.The majority, however,are usually
understood as belonging to history rather than to present debate. The most common
reason such 'old theories'are usually invoked in anthropology is as a catalogue of errors, a
list of conceptual shortcuts that we wish to avoid repeating.This is not in itself a bad rea
son to recall them. In particular, it is often possible with hindsight to build a historical
context around theories that the actors themselves may not have seen, or seen too well -
either way — that they would not themselves have considered as'context'(see chapter 1).
This in turn can provide powerful lessons for the present,in the form oferrors and short
cuts to avoid. Important as it is, however, this cannot be the only reason for retrospection,
or the only mode in which it occurs. Old theories can also be mined for new insights,
particularly if we recognise those aspects of their problematics that still resonate,
VIews from Cambrídge?

This book is a collective endeavour of a somewhat unusual kind. Most edited books are
the result of conferences or workshops.They represent a conversation that took place at
one point in time over a few days. Encyclopaedias, including thematic ones, by contrast,
are assembled by commissioning articles ffom scholars in a range ofinstitutions, who have
often not been in conversation at ali.They seek to provide a comprehensive coverage ofa
discipline or subject area.
This book, by contrast, is the result of a much longer conversation. As its origin as a
lecture series determines much about the form,contem and'voice'ofthe book,it is worth
saying a few words about how a lecture series, and this one in particular, is organised in
Cambridge.The 'Schools and Styles' lecture series has been running under this title for
many decades along the same basic principie:lecturers and associates ofthe department of
social anthropology are each called upon to give one or two lectures on a theoretical
school,style or problem in which they have a particular interest or expertise.The selection
is made by a paper coordinator, whose role is to ensure the balanced and comprehensive
nature of the set as a whole.This oversight is, however,collective as well as individual; the
core teaching staff of the department come together to discuss the content of every
lecture series once a year. Coordinators present their proposed papers for the following
years to the scrutiny oftheir coUeagues, who wiU often comment on particular inclusions
and exclusions. The deparmient comes together in the same way to set examination
papers, at which point again the balance of topics and the way in which they are treated
4 Matei Candea
is examined coUectávely. As a residt of this process, the lecture series, and therefore
this book, is a thoroughly coUective endeavour. It represents an ongoing conversation
between a group of coUeagues with diverse interests about the history and state of
anthropological theory.This — crucially — includes colleagues who are not represented as
authors here, but who have been involved formally and informally in these conversations
over the years.'
This conversation is longstanding but it is also perpetually changing.The chapters in
this book reflect a moment: they are based on the lectures as given in the 2016 to 2017
academic year. As the personnel of the department changes and their interests shift, so
does the content of the lectures, the theoretical schools they choose to lecture on, the
overall outhne of the course and, more broadiy, the way in which 'theory' itself is por-
trayed and understood — more on this later. Individual and collective perspectives about
what such a course should contain shift through time,tracking transformations in anthro
pological theory, and transformations in the Cambridge department. Some topics are
enduring:I was lectured on structural-functionalism as an undergraduate nearly 20 years
ago;I now give that lecture, which forms the basis of chapter 1 in this book. Needless to
say, it is no longer the same lecture as the one that I once attended. As the same topic is
taken up by different people, each rewrites the lectures more or less from scratch, some-
times drawing on the reading lists oftheir predecessors. Other topics represented here are
new:chapter 9 on the Frankfurt School is based on a lecture given for the first time in the
2016 to 2017 academic year.
In sum, then, this book does not claim to be either exhaustive or representativo of
anthropological theory as a whole.As we shall see below,any such claim would be inher-
ently meaningless. Like any other account of theory, this is an account from a particular
time and place, and I have tried in the above to give a sense of where and when that is.
This book is the result of the complex process through which a collective of scholars in
an academic department put together a partly shared perspective on anthropological
theory.
However, the sense in which this book gives a 'Cambridge perspective' on theory
should be understood under the caveat that any such perspective is internally multiple and
historically changing. Seen firom outside, university departments are often caricatured as
holding a particular hne or representing a particular style, in an endless process of self-
reproduction.Yet the briefest consideration ofa university department's actual structure as
a community of practice should demonstrate how unlikely this is to be the case. Some of
the contributors in this book were trained in Cambridge and others were not. Some have
been lecturing there for many years. Others joined the department much more recendy.
A number wiU be employed elsewhere by the time of pubhcation.Thus,the reader should
not be surprised to find radical differences in tone,style and approach between the chapters
in this book.This book is the echo of a conversation that took place in Cambridge. It is
not'the Cambridge view',as there is no such thing.
What is theory?
As I noted above, contributors' views are diverse not only in their approach to particular
theories, but in the more fundamental question of what'theory' is. This book as a whole
is best treated as a collective and multi-vocal answer to this question. It cannot be summed up
in a few pithy hnes.The rest ofthis introduction will, however,outline three longstanding
Introduction 5
threads to the general discussion about the nature of thecry that runs through this book.
The first concerns the 'externai' problem: how, and to what effect, does one mark out
theory from other things (method, data, practice, etc.) often subsumed in anthropology
through a distinction between theory and ethnographyPThe second concerns the'internai'
question of how theory is subdivided (into schools, styles, paradigms,concepts, etc.).The
third question asks what,ifanything,is distinctively anthropological about anthropological
theory.
These questions point to three demarcations that organise, in part, the subject matter
and approach of this book: the theory/ethnography distinction, the device of grouping
theory into 'paradigms' and indeed the device of treating anthropological theory as dis-
tinctive. None of these is self-evident, and this book, while relying on them to some
extent, does not take them for granted. However,I will argue that ali three of these con-
ceptual devices can be and have been extremely productive tools for thinking,even though
they are not philosophically tenable in some broader senses.
What, if anything, separates 'theory' from anything else? In particular, Hnes are often
drawn between theory and method, on the one hand, and between theory and material
(content, data, description, examples) on the other. For a substantial period in the history
of anthropology (and in some quarters still today), theory was understood to stand apart
from, and above, method and material. Fieldwork pointed to both of the latter terms: a
technical procedure for gathering 'data' that would then be analysed and theorised.This
speaks to the enduring division in anthropology between'ethnography'(both in the sense
ofa fieldwork method,and in the sense ofa written product) and'theory'.This distinction
draws on, and echoes, within our discipline, epistemological distinctions widespread
throughout social science and indeed science more broadly: distinctions between descrip
tion and explanation; and between the particular and the general. For evolutionists,some
structural-functionalists such as Radcliffe-Brown (see chapter 1) and some structuralists
such as Lévi-Strauss (see chapter 2), this conceptual division was also a division oflabour:
fieldworkers on the one hand, theorists on the other, had different roles and skillsets that
would be found in the same person only coincidentally.To the fieldworker fell the task of
accurately describing the way ofHfe and customs ofa people.To the theorist the — imphcidy
nobler - task ofcomparing,abstracting and generalising ffom this data in view ofa theory.
Even though the professional culture of anthropologists since the beginning of the 20th
century mosdy enjoined them to take on both of these roles, the sense in which these
roles are distinct along the fines described above endures in backroom talk about one's
own particular strengths and weaknesses in comparison with other anthropologists ('He's
a fantastic ethnographer, but not much of a theorist', etc.).
Needless to say, these distinctions in anthropology between theory and method, and
also between theory and data, are inherendy polirical in more than one sense.They map
the internai politics of the discipline, with its various implicit and explicit scales of value
and accreditation. But they emerge also from anthropology's historical place in a global
order of knowledge production in which metropolitan scholars theorised about data
extracted from the colonies and the peripheries (see chapters 1 and 5).This reflects the
broader point that, for much of the history of anthropology, as pithily summarised by
Clifford Geertz:'its subjects and its audience were not only separable but morally discon-
nected,that the first were to be described but not addressed,the second informed but not
implicated'(1988:132).'Theory'played the role ofa filter, through which anthropologists
performed that miracle of one-way translation. As Chua and Mathur (forthcoming)
6 Matei Candea
recently noted, anthropologists' still-frequent reference to an 'us' position rcmains an

enduring instance ofthis unequal global order of knowledge production.Anthropologists
have frequently deconstructed the idea that there might be a culturally honiogeneous
(Western or EuroAmerican) 'us' to whom anthropology might be addressed. But an
equally problematic implication is that of the univocality of anthropology as a discipline.
That anthropological *us' masks an unequal global academic landscape in which (new,
exciring, cutting-edge)'theory' is still looked for in the same old metropolitan centres.
In this order of things,'theory from the South'(ComarofF and ComarofF 2012) or 'from
the East'(Howe and Boyer 2015) has been seen as requiring specific and explicit acknow-
ledgement.A number ofchapters in this book explore the way in which Marxist,feminist,
post-colonial and other criticai scholars have seen themselves as challenging the politics of
anthropological knowledge production (see chapters 1, 5,6,8 and 12). In so doing, they
have not only produced theory themselves, but also explored the politics of doing so.
Of course, their own way v^tith theory, and their own politics of knowledge production,
have in turn become the subject offurther critiques.
And yet,from another point of view, these critiques were merely reformulating a very
old point embedded in the disciplinary structure of anthropology itself. Indeed, the birth
of anthropology as a discipline coincided precisely with a challenge to the classic way of
dividing dieory from method on the one hand, theory from material on the other.With
Malinowski's focus on long-term fieldwork came the recognition that questions of field
method were inherently theoretical. Mahnowskian functionalism was as much a meth-
odological development as a theoretical one: new kinds of'data' and new understandings
of what*data' might be, made old theoretical questions meaningless (see chapter l).The
point that ethnographic method is an inherently theoretical question has been a recurrent
theme in anthropological discourse ever since; as Harri Englund shows in his discussion
ofthe Manchester SchooVs'extended-case method',and the more recent development of
'multi-sited fieldwork' (see chapter 6). In a different vein, Bourdieu's moves towards a
'theory of practice', however highly theoretical they themselves ended up being, were
premised on an explicit challenge to the usual way in which theory had been abstracted
fixjm descriptions ofthe flow oflife (see chapter 4).
There was also another way in which anthropological scholarship,from the beginning,
involved a challenge to the usual way of imagining the theory/method distinction.This
was the profound sense in which the conceptual work of anthropology, from the early
20th century,ifnot indeed befbre, was intended as inherently disruptive and criticai, chal
lenging ^X/estern assumptions and established philosophical paradigms by showing the
rationality of unfamiliar modes of thinking or the effectiveness and beauty of unfamiliar
social arrangements.This was closely linked to Malinowski's challenge to the 'division of
labour' model of anthropological research: fieldworkers,in the Malinowskian view, had to
be theorists, and theorists had to be fieldworkers, because the engine of anthropological
knowledge production was the experience ofotherness in the course offield study (Kuper
1973: 32-33). Making 'defamiharisation' into the core anthropological move meant, in
turn,that successful fieldwork had to be transformative,if not indeed destructive of estab
lished theory,and creative of new theoretical perspectives.
That Malinowskian view has not gone unchallenged, and the nature of fieldwork has
changed profoundly also over the past century (see chapter 6). But this view of fieldwork
as transformative persists in contemporary anthropological attitudes to the ethnography—
theory relation. In other, more self-consciously scientific disciplines, excitement and
Introduction 7
success tends to be attached to research that confirms clearly set out hypotheses, whereas —
an often deplored fact — 'negative results' are rarely even published (see Granqvist 2015).
In anthropology, by contrast,fieldwork has usually been seen as successful precisely at the
moment when it proved unexpected, and exceeded theory.The role of fieldwork was in
efFect to produce that moment when the theoretical frames with which one had initially
approached the problem revealed themselves to be inadequate.This modei ofanthropology
as perpetuai conceptual revolution has remained deeply anchored in anthropologists' ways
ofevaluating each other and themselves,even though this is not,ofcourse,ali that anthro
pologists do.-
One of the effects of this model is a particularly firequent fragmentation of theoretical
perspectives, with each subsequent fieldworker feeling the need to break with a previous
theoretical status quo. Hence the multiphcity of schools, styles, labels and 'turns' with
which this introduction began. As much as a new Tramework', what is often at stake in
these changes and shifts is a different set of cases and experiences.That is why so many of
the chapters in this book are,in effect, as much a history of paradigmatic ethnographies as
a history of theories.
Another effect of this model of permanent conceptual revolution is that anthropology,
from the start, posed the question of the encounter with others* theories, long before
'theory from the South' was formulated as a problem in those terms. Certainly, there was
always a positivistically inclined strand of anthropology that gave non-Western theories
relatively short shrift.They featured mainly as elements ofa factual reahty to be explained
by our own,definitionally superior, theories. But another, interpretive, vein that also ran
through anthropology from the start of the discipHne (see chapters 1 and 8) asked how
another point of view on the world might transform,inform or challenge our own.This
question, ever reinvented, took a more radical form with the 'writing-culture' critique of
the 1980s, when anthropologists' own knowledge practices, modes of explanation and
techniques of authorship came under more direct scrutiny (see chapter 8). Anthropolo
gists' claim to be able to explain, organise and translate a diversity of cultural points of
view was critically examined. An authoritative anthropological interpretation of others'
perspectives was more clearly distinguished from a commitment to actually letting those
others speak in their own voice.This being said, detractors noted that the 1980s critique
itself was animated as much by resolutely'metropoHtan'high theory imported from Uterary
studies and philosophy as by the actual transformative encounter with the voices of'the
other', and indeed often in practice led to a focus on the writing, rather than the doing,
of ethnography (Handelman 1994).
A further (ontological) turn of that (epistemological) screw followed the observation
that anthropologists' concern with the study of'cultures' or points of view on the world
carried an implicit imbalance that undermined its own relativist niessage (see chapter 14).
With cultural relativism, everyone was entided to their viewpoints, of course. But 'the
world', or 'nature', remained out of the anthropological frame; a matter for biologists,
physicists and the hke. In other words, everyone had their culture, but the West, as it
happened, also had the key to nature.The 'ontological turn'that emerged as a critique of
that position is only the most recent (albeit perhaps the most radical) instance of the idea
that anthropology's role is to provide conceptual disturbance toWestern theories by taking
non-Western ones seriously.
This ontological move chimed in with other developments at the turn ofthe 21st century,
such as actor-network theory (see chapter 13),in attacking the very figure oftheory itself.
154 James Laidiaw
discipline as a succession of dominant genres of ethnographic writing, with cmphasis on

how the ethnographer him or herself was represented in the text.This narrative was struc-
tured by a classificatíon of ethnographic genres that was also, despitc disclaimers to the
contrary, a story of progress and a moral ranking. It began with 'participant-observer
ethnography': works such as those by Bronislaw Malinowski and Margaret Mead that
presented themselves as first-hand accounts by people who had participated in what they
described,expressing a prescribed attitude ofloose cultural relativism,showing a preoccu-
pation with problems of language and translation, and with a representational strategy,
whatever the thematíc focus or theoretical orientarion, of holism. Next in Clifford's
sequence comes'interpretive ethnography',that on his account struggled, through a series
ofevasions and dishonesries remorselessly exposed inVincent Crapanzano's chapter(1986)
on Geertz's famous'Deep play'essay,to escape the consequences ofits political complicity.
But salvation is at hand, or at least being worked out, in the forni of'dialogic ethnogra
phy', in which the 'positionality' of the ethnographer is directly represented in the text,
along with the circumstances and processes through which'data' are generated in dialogue
with informants, and crucially in which the voice of those inforniants is heard. This
typically meant that such ethnographies were the record ofdialogues between the anthro-
pologist and either one or a very few others (e.g. Rabinow 1977; Crapanzano 1980;
Shostak 1981;Dwyer 1982).While welcoming this new emerging mode ofethnographic
writing,for Clifford,its limitation lay in the fact that the anthropologist retained editorial
control and therefore the (necessarily colonialist, oppressive, distorting) authority of rep-
resenting the voice ofthe other.Thus it remained complicit in the unequal power dynamics
ofthe post-colonial order.But he proposed (and cited a few examples) ways ofrelinquishing
or sharing authorial control in texts that would be internaUy fragmented mosaics of differ-
ent voices. Clifford called this emergent new mode of ethnographic writing 'heteroglos-
sic', a term he borrowed, along with 'dialogic', from Russian philosopher and literary
theorist Mikhail Bakhtin (1981). He predicted that, as it developed, the limitations ofthe
academic discipline of anthropology would be transcended in a more open,participatory,
activist form ofcultural engagement(see also Clifford 1988).There was rather more to the
Writing Culture volume,it must be said, than was encapsulated in Clifford's introduction —
it is hard not to read Paul Rabinow s contribution (1986) as a wittily deflationary raspberry
blown at the rest of the volume — but it fairly soon became widely accepted as providing
its take-home points.
It is uncontroversial,I think, to say that things have not gone quite as Clifford and his
admirers predicted or recommended.The exemplars of heteroglossic ethnography he held
up for approbation remain in merited obscurity, and largely unimitated.l he fashion for
dialogic texts ran its course: few anthropologists had the skiU or disposition to write so
extensively about themselves,in a way they could reasonably expect others to find inter-
esting; most indeed found that what they wanted to say about the people and places they
had studied required textual strategies - notably handling of evidence and argument,and
engagement with existing literature — that could not be accommodated in the proposed
new genre. And a few high-profile disappointments (e.g. Menchu, with Burgos-Debray
1984) took the shine off the assumed moral sanctity of deferred or dispersed authorial
responsibility. More broadly, post-modernist literary theory proved of limited utility in
addressing the conspicuous problems that the world threw up in the foUowing decade (the
collapse of socialism, new ethnic and nationalist conflicts, globalization) and it became
hard to sustain interest or a claim to urgency and inclusivity, through what was ali too
Interpretive cultural anthropology 155
frequendy rebarbative atui prctcnciousjargon-ridden \vriting.Today,most anthropologists

do describe in cheir wricings more about the processes of fieldwork and their research
pracrice than was convcntional bctbrc the 1980s, but once again less than the extended
breast-beating thac was coinnion in the years of IVrithtg Cultiire's immediate influence.The
sub-genre of the antliropolog\- of suffering (e.g. Biehl 2005; see discussion by Robbins
2013) is probably wherc that iníluence, in the sense ofsdll-hve engagement with its prin
cipal concerns througii the incans it brought to prominence,is still most direcdy visible.
There were, of coursc, critics of Geertz of a wholly different stamp firam the Writing
Culture group, who thouglic that witli the opprobrium he was subjected to in that volume
and elsewhere, hc was rcaping what lie himsclf had sown.Ernest Geliner.for instance.had
launched his carcer with a broadside attack on the whole movement of Wittgensteinian
ordinary-language piiilostipiiy froni which Geertz drew so much inspirarion (Gellner
1959), and had in tiie nieantiine maintained that Geertz's account of Moroccan culture
was touched as mucii by roínantic idealisation as by philosophical idealism (1981). He
charged also that it was Cíeertz who had opened the flood-gates to the excesses ofpost-
modernisni and relativisin. as represented by IVriting Culture (1992). Gellner argued that
in exaggerating cultural difierence (both the internai homogeneity of'cultures' and the
depth of diffcrences between theni) and in ignoring the explanatory importance of hard
material political and econoniic realities, Geertz had abandoned the legacy ofthe Enlight-
enment and with it the big historical and compararive quesrions that it is anthropology's
mission to address (for, in some ways,similar critiques of Geertz,though firam first a Maixist
and then a cognitivist perspective, see Bloch 1989; 2012).While Gellner was not at his
most subde or perceptive in his reading of Geertz,it is true that it is hard to see the com-
manding authority Cieertz exercised in anthropology at the beginning ofthe 1980s giving
rise to a sustained intellecrual agenda. Few would-be imitators could replicate the virtu-
osity of his essays. And his fidelity to the Boasian notion of relatively homogeneous and
relatively bounded cultures closed off virtually any possibilities of systematic comparison.
He did espouse the notion of'cultural systems'- the idea that religion, politics, common
sense,among others were areas oflife with certain common features,even in very diflferent
cultures - but that idea never received more than impressionistic expression and it was
unclear what Geertz thought followed from it. Insofar as there was a Geertzian research
programme, it consisted exclusively of the ambition of producing another interpretation
ofanother culture,as fine as Geertzs own. No sense was developed ofsequential or cumu-
lative enquiry. And in one of his most high-profile performances at the height of his
influence - the'Distinguished Lecture' he delivered to the 1983 meeting ofthe American
Anthropological Association (Geertz 1984) — he mounted a defence of the doctrine of
cultural relativism that he elsewhere conceded to be 'witless' (2000), on the shallow
grounds that he did not want to be associated with the most vocal, philosophically unso-
phisticated exponents of universalism, even though he knew perfecdy well the choice
between these positions is a false one. He remained in the end unwilling to abandon his
explanatory dependence on the Boasian concept of culture, and there is no cogent way
from there to block a relativist conclusion. On this occasion, a preference for indirection
and evasion left the subject he was addressing (uncharacteristically) more confused than
he had found it.
Interestingly, however, that same year, Geertz delivered a set of lectures - this time at
Stanford - that although this was before IVrítiug Culture had been published, formed
the basis of a rather eífective reply to it, when later revised and published as PVorks and
156 James Laidiaw
Uues (1988).That reply works on two levek.At the levei of the whole book,there is an
argument about the relation between forms ofethnographic writing and anthropological
truth, that builds on a much more perceptive and sure-footed reading of Foucault than
that which informed Wríting Culture. Geertz summarily dismissed the idea that there ever
could be a way of conveying ethnographic truth from which the singularity of the
anthropologist as author could be excised. The idea of relinquishing authorship and
letting the ethnographic subject and data speak directly is a mixturc of a naive politícal
fantasy (you cannot change the world that easily) with an unacknowlcdged lingering
attachment to a positívist conception oftruth (the Marxist idea ofideology'as motivated
'pardal' distortion). The originality and force of the greatest and most influential
anthropologists,Geertz sought to show,consists precisely in the fact that thcy have created
new ways of telling, and therefore tiewforms of anthropological truth. This argument is
illustrated in the substantive chapters of the book with a discussion of the literary styles,
respectively, of Lévi-Strauss, Evans-Pritchard, Malinowski and Benedict. In each case,
Geertz takes as his text a piece of writing that is not a formal exercise in academic
anthropology.The implicit reply to Writing Culture's claim, in its subtitle, to unveil 'the
poetics and politics of ethnography' is that its poetics was simplistic and its politics naive
and unrealistic.
But there is a second levei to Geertz's reply because his specific remarks about Writing
Culture occur in his chapter on Malinowski. The general point Geertz makes in that
chapter,which concerns the diary Malinowski kept while conducting his'iVobriand field-
work,and that caused something ofa scandal when published posthumously (Malinowski
1967), is that the anxieties expressed so tortuously in Malinowski's diary, that see him
agonising about his lack of empathy with his subjects - his loneliness, frustrations, bouts
ofanger and resentment,and the disobliging stereotypes and profanities he used as a balm
for these resentments - had the terrifying weight they had for Malinowski because they
bore direcdy on the infirmities of his conception of anthropological truth. His naive real-
ism led him to hope for a language that would correspond directly to the reality he wished
to describe. His psychologism led him to think that to understand IVobriand culture he
must penetrate the mysteries ofindividual Trobrianders' minds.Thus, his claim to author-
ity, and confidence in the righmess of his analyses, seemed to him to depend not on the
quality of his observation or argument, but on the personal relationships he was able to
maintain with individual Trobrianders and the degree of mental identification he was able
to achieve with them;not on professional skills and intelligence, but unexampled sensitiv-
ity and unimpeachable moral probity.And ofcourse,by those latter criteria he was bound
to fail.The result, says Geertz, was his 'diary disease'. Geertz takes up rather litde space in
the chapter with direct comment on the anxieties and concerns that flielled Writing Culture,
because his point was a simple one:they have landed themselves in the same predicament
as Malinowski, because they have a similar naive ambition of gaining unmediated access
to the psychic truth of their subjects.Thus, their writings too are smitten with 'diary dis
ease',the symptoms now being a compulsion to try to convince their readers ofthe depth
of their subjective identification with their informants, and the purity of their political
sentiments.
And ofcourse,the unspoken further claim of this immodest but impressive book is that
to the list offour great anthropologists who have created their own distinctive and disci-
phne-changing forms of anthropological truth, through the singularity and force of their
way of writing, a fifth should rightly be added, because Geertz with some justice saw
Interpretive cultural anthropolog/ 157
himself as haviiig succcedcd in inventing a distincrive new way of writing anthropology.

He saw that achicvcment, ultimately, as untroubled by che objectíons of these critdcs.
I rather think that, with ali his iiniitations, this is turning out to be history'sjudgement too.
References
Austin.John I.. 1962. How to Do 'niiiis>s with IVords. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail 1981. Ilie Diiilo\;ic hnagiuation: Four Essays, edited by Michael Holquist. Ausdn,
TX: University oflexas Press.
Biehl.Joào 2005. I Yr</.- L//è iii o Zohv ofAluiiidoiitiietit. Berkeley, CA: University of Califórnia Press.
Bloch, Maurice 1989. Ritual. History and Power: Selected Papers LondonrAthlone.
2012. Aiithropoloiiy and thc Cogiiitive ChaUenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clifford,James 1986. Introduction: Partial truths. In James ClifFord and George E. Marcus (eds.),
Writittg Cultitrc: Thc Poctics and Politics of Ethuography, pp. 1-26. Berkeley, CA: University of
Califórnia Press.
1988.'lhe Predkiwicut ofCulturc:Twcntieth-CetituryEthmgraplty,Literature,atidArt.CambTÍág,e,
MA:Harvard Universit>' Press.
Clifford,James and George E. Marcus (eds.) 1986. Writhig Cuíture:Tlte Poetics and Politics oJEthnog-
raphy. Berkeley. CA: Universit>' of Califórnia Press.
Crapanzano,Vincent 1980. Tuhami: Portrait ofa Moroccan. Chicago,IL University of Chicago Press.
1986. 1 Icrines' dilemma: The masking ofsubversion in ethnographic descriptíon. In James
Clifford and George F.. Marcus (eds.). IVríting Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Etltnography.
Berkeley, CA: University of Califórnia Press.
Darnton,Robert 1984. Hie Grcat Cat MassaaetAnd Other Episodes in French Cultural History.Chicago,
IL, University of Chicago Press.
Dvvyer, Kevin 1982. Moroccati Dhdogucs: Atithropology in Ques/íoíi. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Eagleton.Terry 1983. Litcniry'nicory:An Introduction. Oxíord.BhckweU.
Geertz, Clifford 1960. The Religioti ofjnva. NewYork,NY:Free Press.
1963a. Agricultund Ifwolution: The Process of Ecological Change in Indonésia. Berkeley, CA:
University of Câlifornia Press.
1963b. Peddhirs and Primes: Social Change and Econotnic Modemisation in an Indonesian Toum.
Chicago, 11.: University of Chicago Press.
1965. 'lhe Social History ofan Indonesian Town. Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
1968. Islani Obsemed: Religious Developntent in Morocco and Indotiesia. Chicago,IL: University
of Chicago Press.
1973. lhe Interpretation of Cultures: Essays in hiterpretiueAfithropology. NewYork, NYiBasic
Books.
1980. Negara:Hie Theater State in Ninetcenth-Century Bali. Princeton,NJ:Princeton University
Press.
1983. Local Knowledge:Further Essays in Interpretit'eAntliropology.NewYoTk,NY:B3sicBooks.
1984. Distinguished Lecture:Anti anti-relativism./luicnVrt/MHdíropo/cg/st 86:263-278.
1988. Works and Lives:'Ihe Anthropologist asAuthor. Paio Alto,CA:Stanford University Press.
1995. After the Facf.Two Countries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist.Cambridge,MA:Harvard
University Press.
2000. Auailahlc Light:Anthropological Reflections on PhilosophicalTopics. Princeton,NJ:Princeton
University Press.
2012. Lífe Ainotig the Anthros and Other Essays,edited by Fred Inglis.Princeton,NJ:Princeton
University Press.
Geertz, Clifford, I lildred Geertz and Lawrence Rosen 1979. Meaning and Orderin Moroccan Society.
Cambridge: C'ambridgc University Press.
158 James Laidiaw
Geertz,Hildred and Cliffbrd Geertz 1975.Kinship itt Bali. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gellner, Ernest 1959. Words atidHiings:Ati Examitiation of, and an Attack on, Liugnistic Phihsophy.
London; GoUancz.
1981. Muslim Soríety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1992.Postmodemism, Reason and Religion. London: Routledge.
Greenblatt,Stephen \9S0.Renaissance Self-Fashioning:From More to Sliükespcíirc. Cliicago,IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Kripke,Saul A.1982. IVittgetistein on Ruies and Private Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lambek,Michael Í98Í.Human Spirits:A CulturalAccoiint o/Trance in Mayotte. Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude 1962 [1953]. Structural Antliropology. NevvYork, NY: Basic Books.
Malinowski,Bronislaw 1967.^4 Diary in the Strict Sense of tlic Ternt. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Meeker,Michael E.1979.Uterature and Violence in NortliArabia. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Menchu,Rigoberta, with Elisabeth Burgos-Debray 1984. /, Rigoberta Mcnclni:An Indian Woinan in
Guatemala. London:Verso.
Ormer,Sherry B. 1978. SlierpasThrougli their Rituais. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rabinow,Paul 1977.Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley,CA:University of Califórnia Press.
1986. Representations are social facts: Modernity and post-modernity in anthropology.
In James Clifford and George E. Marcus (eds.), Writing Cnlturc.Tlie Poetics and Politics ofEthnog-
raphy, pp.234-261.Berkeley, CA:University of Califórnia Press.
Radcliffe-Brown,A.R. 1952. Strucíure and Function in Primitive Society. London: Cohen and West.
Ricoeur, Paul 1973.The model of the text: Meaningful action considered as a text. New Literary
History 5:91-117.
Robbins.Joel 2013. Beyond the suffering subject:Toward an anthropology of the good.Joumal of
the Royal Antliropological Institute 19:447-462.
Rosaldo, Michelle Z. 1980. Knowledge and Passion:Ilongot Notions of Self and Social Life. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rosen,Lawrence \9S4.Batgainingfor Reality:The Constniction ofSocial Relations in a Muslim Connnunity.
Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ryle, Gilbert 1949. The Concept ofMind. London: Hutchinson.
Said,Edward W.1978. Orientalism. London:Penguin Books.
Sewell,William H.1980. Work and Revolution in FranceiThe Language of Labour From the Old Regime
to 1848. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shostak, Magorie 1981. Nisa: The Life and Words of a ÍKung Woman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Taylor, Charles 1985. Human Ageticy and Language: Philosophical Papers 1. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
White,Leslie A.1949. The Science of Culture. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Wittgenstein,Ludwig 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Zemon Davis, Natalie 1983. The Retum of Martin Guerre. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Chapter 9
The Frankfurt School, criticai

theory and anthropology
Christos Lynteris
Anthropological chcory tcxtbooks and papers often, and in a manner appearing in many
cases to be apologctic, nicncion tliat the Frankfurt Schoors'iníluence on anthropology has
been minimal'(Morris 2014: 298). It may then be surprising to find a chapter on it, and
criticai theory more gcnerally, in a volume showcasing the main theoretical trends in the
discipline. Still, it is pcrhaps precisely this ability to remain and operate as it were at the edge
ofsight that makcs criticai theory so crucial for anthropology.This chapter does not aim to
review the ways in whicii anthropologists have employed methods or notions derived
fix)m criticai theory. Nor is it interested in excavating the 'influence' of the Frankfurt
School on anthropology'; the very notion being more astrological than analytical, or for
that matter historical. Instead, my aim here is to illuminate the aitical theoretical potential in
anthropology, showing both ways in which it has been fruitflilly actualised, and, most
importantly, how it forms one of the rare inexhaustíble undercurrents not of a restricted
discipline but of anthropological thinking itself, as a capacity for creating new concepts of,
and about, the social world in which we live and act.
In their landmark volume,Anthropology as Cultural Critique, George Marcus and Michael
Fischer acknowledged the I rankfurt School as,'perhaps the most important stimulus to
the revitalised sense of cultural criticism among the younger generation of American
anthropologists during the 1960s and 1970s'(1986; 119). Flovvever, they seemed uncon-
vinced about the continuing relevance of criticai theory,seeing the fragmentary nature of
much of its writings as well as its theoretical, rather than empirical, orientation as severe
limitations. In what reads as a reserved appraisal of its legacy, they concluded that,*while
attractive to the temper of the 1970s, however, the contributions of the early Frankfurt
School leaves something to be desired now'(p. 122).
In fact, rather than spent, criticai theory was poised to be a major force in the reshaping
of the intellectual landscape in the social sciences and the humanitíes of the post-Cold
War era. Central to this was the rediscovery ofWalter Benjamin,and for the first time,the
systematic translation of his works in English. Characteristically, writing two decades after
Anthropology as Cttltural C^ritique, Fischer would identify his own research as part of'an
increasing flood of work'(2009: 27) in dialogue with Benjamin's opus.
But what is criticai theory? This question may be much harder to answer than it first
appears. In light ofthe limited space, I will here relate only to the so-called first generation
of the Frankfurt School and its associates, thus leaving out of my discussion the second
generation of criticai theorists, including philosophers like Jürgen Habermas and Axel
Honneth. Also absent from my discussion are the works of Herbert Marcuse and Erich
Fromm that, though vital components of the School at different stages of its intellectual
160 Christos Lynteris
and institutional life,fali better within the remit of psychoanalysis and anthropology,or,as
the case may be for the former,anthropology and so-called Freudo-Marxism.
Outiining criticai theory

Founded in 1923, the University of Frankfurt's Institute for Social Rescarch (in short
Frankjurt Sdiool)began its lifè as a Marxist-inspired insritution,which undcr Max I lorkheimeFs
direction (1930-1953) and with the help of its main publication, Zcitschrift Jiir Sozialjor-
schung, flourished into one of the most influential research institutos of the 20th century.
Over the decades.ithostedpath-breakingscholars such asTheodorW.Adorno,Frich Fromm,
Herbert Marcuse,Jürgen Habermas, Franz Leopold Neumann, Leo Fòwenthal and Axel
Honneth, whilst associadng and interacting with eminent thinkers likc Waltcr Benjamin
and Siegfried Kracauer.Banned in Nazi Germany in 1933,the Institute initially moved to
Geneva and then to NewYork two years later, where it conducted, amongst other things,
its landmark research on Nazism and on the 'authoritarian personality' (Adorno et al.
1951) before moving back to Germany in 1949. During these developments, different
members and associates ofthe Institute followed diverse but often converging trajectories,
whilst conversing vividly with other eminent scholars (many of thein also exiles) such as
Gerhard Scholem,Martin Buber,EmstBloch,Hannah Arendt and Bertolt Brecht.Benjamin,
the only associate to remain in Europe,took his own life after an aborted attempt to flee
France for Spain in 1940.
In spite of its institutional setting, criticai theory never developed into a normative
social theory,and hence,following Susan Buck-Morss (1977),the terni may be said to lack
substansive and historical precision.And yet it would be going too far to say, with Martin
Jay (1996:41),that it was simply a dialogical'gadfly of other systems'. As Douglas Kellner
(1994) has argued,this would be obscuring the fact that criticai theory developed in direct
relation to pressing social questions of its time; most pointedly the rise of fascism across
Europe.
In order to füUy understand the scope of this school of social theory, it is conventional
and indeed helpfiil to take as a starting point Max Horkheimer s programmatic 1937 essay
'Traditional and criticai theory'. There, critiquing the modelling of the social sciences
upon the natural sciences (a hegemonic tendency at the time,see chapter 1), Horkheimer
argued that,'The facts which our senses present to us are socially performed in two ways:
through the historical character of the object perceived, and through the historical char-
acter of the perceiving organ'(2002 [1944]: 200). Similarly opposed to positivism and to
predictive statements in sociology, Horkheimer's dose associate and philosopher extraor-
dinaire,Theodor Adorno, maintained that the separation between research niethods and
the object of research was a mystifying process. Instead, Adorno underlined 'that the
research methods employed should always be closely related to, and derived from, the
social phenomena being studied'(Morris 2014:333).
This approach was rooted in Marxian dialectics (see chapter 3), insofar as it drew on
Marx and Engels'materiahst reconfiguration of Georg HegeFs idea that history proceeded
by means ofa triadic process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Following Marx and Engels,it
was only by turning Hegel on his head, and replacing his idealist focus on human
consciousness with a materiahst focus on human existence that the historical process
could be understood as a dialectical process ofsocial transformation 'with one social stage,
the thesis,inevitably"sowing the seeds of its own destruction" by harbouring its opposite,
The Frankfurt School 161
the antithcsis' (Ericksoii and Murphy 2008: 44). And yet criticai theory was resistant to
rendering dialcctics into a theory of knovvledge as promoted by Soviet-sponsored'dialec-
tical materialisni'. It thus rctained at its foundations a radical epistemological and meth-
odological challengc of the relacion bctween subject and object that direcdy confk)nted
the'paradigni of knowing as a thcoretical representation of a wholly independent object
domain'(Bernstein 1994: 1).
Developing an anthropological niaterialist approach entailed the rejecdon not only of
objectivist ontology but also of the subject as the starting point and pivot *of bourgeois
philosophy'(Horkheiiner 2002 [1944): 211). On the one hand,this led to the recognidon
of the production of knowledge as a process that required the overcoming of subject/
object dichotomies that doniinated the social sciences at the dme.And on the other hand,
it also led to a recognition ot the iti process impact ofsocial scientific research on its subject.
In other words, constituting a key conceptual and methodological baseline for crucial
developments in anthropology 50 years later (see chapter 8),cridcal theory ushered in an
understanding that social research,in its niany forms,does not only impact society through
its written outputs, but as a niode of conduct that changes society at the same dme as it is
studying it; which,in the case of anthropology, means as vve are conducdng ethnographic
fieldwork.
Adorno and Horkheiniers critique of the separadon between thought and reality
would culminate in their major work, Dialectic of Eiiligltteninent (2002 [1944]).Their pro
cess of rendering reality into an object of examinadon or knowledge was linked to the
production of rationalism that was, to use Bruce Kapferer's useful tum of phrase,'instru
mental in generating the supposed irrationalism that it encountered and often fought to
control'(2007: 86); a dialectic reaching its apex in Nazism. Similarly, as Taussig (1989:12)
notes,in the various fragments composing Passagen-Werk or the'Arcades Project'Benjamin
followed the critical-theoretical invesdgative formula oflooking for irradonalism in radonal-
ism in order to expose how 'commodity,in its very modernity and mundaneness,conjured
up the archaic and the exoric, die priniirive and the mythic'(on Benjamin and myth see
Menninghaus 1991; Mali 1999).This was important not only in light ofits approach of dia-
lecdcal reversibility (the process of the thesis containing the seeds of its andthesis, as shown
above) as a core elcment of modem societies (Abélès 2008), but also because, following
Adorno (correspondence in Benjamin 2006 [1935]),it allowed an analysis ofwhat Marx had
identified as the fetish character ofcommodities not simply as a fact ofhuman consciousness,
but as what, under specific historical conditions, produces and organises consciousness.
This technique of'identifying archaic elements with the most modem phenomena'
(Buck-Morss 1977: 58) was key to criticai theory in its many forms, with theoredcal affin-
ides and potentials for antiiropological analysis being pardcularly pronounced.In üluminadng
(rather than 'resolving' in the Hegelian sense) the contradictory character of modernity, it
was a method aimed not at revealing some self-contained reality but, to use Benjarmn's
terms, at awakening us iiito {not fiotn) the dream that structures modem life. Central to this
project was the employment of a'microscopic gaze'(a phrase Adorno used for Benjamin):
'a means for making the very particularity ofthe object release a significance that dissolved
its reified appearance and revealed it to be more than a mere tautology, more than simply
identical to itself'(p. 74). Ihis was a gaze that retained the pardcularity ofthe minute social
and cultural phenomena under examination whilst at the same dme going beyond their
'given' immediacy. Whereas idso key to Adorno's studies of'cultural producdon'(a field
whose impact on media studies has been immense;see Adorno 2001),no work exemplifies
this method more than TheArcades Project, which can be seen as'a historical lexicon ofthe
capitalist origins ofmodemity,[and] a collection ofconcrete,factual iniages of urban expe-
rience'(p. 33) whose key operation is,*telescoping the past through the present'(Benjamin
2002: 588). For it is there that we see emerge the 'dialectical iniagc'; a notion, cr indeed
method,whose analytical and conceptual potendal has fascinatcd, pcrplexed and stimulated
anthropologists interested in illuminaring the consritutive contradictions of modem life (for
Adorno's critique ofthe notion,see Benjamin 2006).
Dialectical image
The dialectical image is an image that,assuming a broader critical-theoretical perspective,
we may say operates as a'switch'insofar as it'arrests fleeting phcnomena'and 'sets reified
objects in motion'(Buck-Morss 1977:106),so as to present us with the non-identity ofa
historical or ethnographic moment as its unintentional truth:
It's not that what is past casts its light on what is present, or what is present its light
on the past;rather,image is that wherein what has been comes together in a flash with
the now to form a constellation. In other words,image is dialcctics at a standstill.
(Benjamin 2002:462/N2a,3)
'Benjamin's history', Uros Cvoro (2008:92-93) explains:
happens through the index ofimages, whereby the index is both the recognition ofa
specific historical time to which an image belongs {Theti) and the recognition of
another time in which such an image first became recognizable (Now),and the site of
their confrontation.
The dialectical image's key fiinction is thus 'to reveal the underlying tensions in history
between different conceptions of temporality and difference' (p. 89). Let us look at an
example whose impact not only in anthropology but also across the social sciences and the
humanities has been far reaching: the flâneur.
In his extensive work on the mid-19th-century French poet. Charles Baudelaire found
in TheArcades Project (for a systematic edition ofthese fragments see Agamben et al. 2013),
Benjamin explores the figure of the flâneur; a middle-class idler who aimlessly strolls the
boulevards and the shopping arcades ofthe French capital (the'capital ofthe 19th century'),
lost in the phantasmagoria of merchandise:
The street becomes a dwelling for the flâneur; he is as much at home among the
facades of houses as a citizen is in his four walls.To him the shiny, enameled signs of
businesses are at least as good a wall ornament as an oil painting is to the bourgeois in
his salon.The walls are the desk against which he presses his notebooks; news-stands
are his libraries and the terraces of cafés are the balconies from which he looks down
on his household after his work is done.
(2002:37)
Ushering in not just a new experience of the city but a new anthropological type,
for Benjamin, the flâneur 'provide[d] a model for the general relationship between
consciousness and expcricncc that becamc dominant in metropolitan centres in...the era
of high capitalism'(ürand 1991: 7-8). I-rom this perspective,in turn,the flâneur has been
approached in anthropology and more broadly the social sciences as a dialectical image of
'our own consumerist mode of being-in-the-world' (Buck-Morss 2006: 35); a figure
whose disappearance from the streets of our metrópoles has given way,as Adorno (1939)
argued,to the'aural tlâneurie'ofradio station-switching or indeed,more recendy,internet
surfing in the form of the 'cyberflâneur'(Manovich 2001; Hartmaan 2004; Hogan 2016).
In these terms, as Dana Brand discusses in her acclaimed history ofílâneurie in América,
through the prism of the dialectical image, this figure is much more than simply a model
for vvhat has been or a predecessor of what is; it rather fimctions,in Benjamin's work, as
an exemplification of the anthropological principie (as appUed to modernity) that'every
epoch dreams of its successor', but also as a prism for our own society whose 'unques-
tioned cognitive status'(l.auster 2007: 139) and criticai potential is evident from the fact
that it visibly continues to excite, puzzle and irritate scholars, critics and commentators
(Stephen 2013; Livingstone and Gyarke 2017).
Examining the dialectical image, this famously enigmatic and, as Eduardo Cadava
(1997) has shown,'photographic' notion, that'never achieved terminological consistency'
(Tiedemann 1999: 942), Max Pensky (2006: 117) explains that it'challenges the famüiar
Kantian notion of understanding as the capacity to generate knowledge of the world
through some rule-governed application ofconcepts to sensory data'.In this sense,it led not
only to a reversal of'the polarity of the relation between subject and object'(Buck-Morss
1977: 83), but also to an unprecedented turn of analytical attention towards the breaks,
cracks and splinters in the social and logical structures under examination.Thus, beyond
the relational epistemology carried over by Benjamin's approach (that is also present in
Adorno's'negative dialectics'), what is important is to note that, being simultaneously the
site and tnethod of cultural critique, the dialectical image constitutes *the scene, space and
form of a certain temporal rupture in which time and space are out ofjoint'(Richter
2006:148). It is, in other words,to paraphrase SigridWeigel (1996), what allows us to see
and engage with what lies beyond the ethnographic continuum, or whatVassos Argyrou
(2002) has identified as anthropology's 'will to meaning'.'As an image flashing up in the
now of its recognizability {Erkennbarkeity (Benjamin 2002: 473/ N9,7) the dialectical
image emerges out of archival or ethnographic fragments as a constellation that disallows
a quick analytical retreat into 'meaning', forcing us instead to take recourse to another
method of sense-making: montage.
In its juxtaposition and, at the same time, connection offragments into hitherto unau-
thorised constellations, Marcus (1995b) has shown that the method of montage has been
key to experinients in ethnographic writing. As variably pioneered and employed by
Sergei Eisenstein, the Surrealists and Bertolt Brecht, montage is then not simply a
technique but a method and simultaneously a key modernist theoretical concept (p. 37).
As Marcus notes, in the field of anthropology a landniark work in the application of this
method has been Michael l aussigs pivotal examination of the colonial *heart of darkness
in the Colombian Amazon,Slnunanism, Colonialisin and theWHd Man (I986),where mon
tage was skilfully employed both 'in its capacity to disrupt the orderly narrative of social
science writing and in its capacity as a performative discourse ofheahngin response to the
history of terror and genocide'(Marcus 1995b:47-48).
To carry over (paraphrasing Benjamin) the principie of montage into ethnography is no
less than to forge new,illuminating, and at the same time,Pensky (2004:186) reminds us.
necessary relarions between the salvaged fiagments.By contrast to what we may call a sys-
temic' outlook underlining diverse and even opposing anthropological schools over the
decades, this method then authorises not only the recognition of usually overlooked or
devalued fragments of social life, but also the radical transformation of their use value
insofar as it fosters an anti-contemplarive,anti-panoramic,and,as a rcsult,counter-reifying,
anthropological approach where the ethnographer assumes the guise of the 'ragpicker'; a
Benjaminian figure which by contrast to the flâneur (a fundamentally romantic,impulsive
and rhapsodic character) is at one and the same time'methodic, reflexive and implacable'
(Berdet 2012:425):
Whisding, nose in the air, distracted by illuminated paneis, captivated by the latest
fashion, a man wanders on the pavestones of his reveries, thoughtfully escaping the
capitalist demand to be usefül. Grumbling,frowning, scanning the ground, obsessed
with nooks, with dark corners, with objects abandoned by society, another man
snoops compulsively on the steps of the first, conferring a new utility to everything
that is'no longer of use'.The first is the flâneur, the other the ragpicker.
(p. 425; my translation, as approved by the author)
Whereas advocates of'postmodern'ethnography(Kõpping 2005;Soukup 2012) and some

urban anthropologists (Jenks and Neves 2000; Lucas 2004; Kramer and Short 2011; Nas
2012) have, each ffom a different perspective, endorsed flâneurie as a method of anthro
pological research (for a review, see Coates 2017), one wonders whether the ragpicker
may not present a more fmitfiil figure for methodological innovation. For what charac-
terises the ragpicker in his or her systematic trajectory is an 'attentive[ness] to the new,
without succumbing to madness'(Berdet 2012: 428). Not mentioning the figure of the
ragpicker in her Anthropological Prarí/re, Judith Okely (2012) comes dose to a similar
formulation,when she employs André Breton's notion of disponibilité to describe the need
for the anthropologisfs openness to unexpected encounters:'[TJhis thirst for wandering
in search of everything, I shall be sustained in mysterious communication with other
available or disponible beings'(Breton 1937 in Okely 2012:54).As with Berdet's reading of
the ragpicker, this proclivity to serendipity is conditioned upon one's attentive receptive-
ness:'the seeker must be ready (guetter), in a state of attentiveness' (p. 55). By proceeding
attentively through the fissures ofthe social fabric and by assuming its detriti and ruins as
its empirical and at the same time conceptual habitus, anthropological thought may then
be able, to repeat Adorno,*to acquire the density of experience without losing any of its
rigour'(in Richter 2006:148;for a comparative perspective on the Uistorian as a ragpicker
seeWohlfarth 1986).
Mímesís
Criticai theory, and Benjamin's work in particular, has found extensive if'fragmentary'
employment in anthropology.Although some applications are inevitably frivolous,seen as
a method,this firagmentary use ofthe fragmentary has led to several successful,illuminadng
anthropological analyses,such as the criticai reading of I lurricane Katrina with Benjamin's
'Flooding of the Mississippi 1927' radio broadcast (Fischer 2009), Aijun Appadurai's
approach to globafization through the notion of'mechanical reproduction' (1996) or
readings ofthe artist as ethnographer through the lens of the'author as producer'(Marcas
1995a; 303). Equally fruitful has been the debate on the application ofcritical-theoreticai
notions of fraginentariness and ruination in the discussion of the productive side of
destructiveness in several anthropological fields both embracing and critically distancing
themselves froni'postinodern'anthropological fascinarion with the fragmentary (Gordillo
2001; Navaro-Yashin 2009; I.ee Dawdy 2010; Ladwig et al, 2012;Stoler 2013).
Still, there is no doubt that anthropological thinking has actualised this critical-theoreticai
potential most fruitfully with regard to the question of mimesis.Although studies of how
humans imitate each other and what lies beyond themselves go back to Plato andAristode
and were developed extensively by influential modem thinkers like Samuel Taylor
Coleridge and Hrich Auerbach, the employment of the notion in contemporary anthro-
pology is firmly anchored in a short but conceptually rich work by Benjamin,'On the
mimetic faculty'; a draft that was never published while the author was alive, and was a
reworked abbreviated edition of his earlier'The doctrine ofthe similar'(1979).
Treating 'the powerful compulsion to become similar and to behave mimetically'
(Benjamin 2005: 720) as a key anthropological trait, Benjamin sought to examine the
actualisation and transformation of mimesis within modernity.'On the mimetic faculty'
may then be said to represent a key moment in the critical-theoreticai examination ofthe
'change in the structure of experience'(Benjamin 2003:314)- a milieu of great anthro
pological importance.
Written in agonistic dialogue with then current anthropological theories (Lévy-Bruhl
and Cassirer), Marxist linguistics (Marr and Vigotsky), Freudian psychoanalysis and
Kabbalist mysticisni (Rabinbach 1979; Hanssen 2004), the essay reflected more widely
Benjamin's anthropological materialism in claiming, as its concluding remarks that:
language may be seen as the highest levei of mimetic behavior and the most complete
archive of nonsensuous siniilarity: a médium into which the earlier powers of mimetic
production and comprehension have passed without residue,to the point where they
have liquidated those of niagic.
(2005:722)
Although the essay is perhaps most faithfully interpreted through the prism ofBenjamin's
profound and no less complex materialist philosophy of language (Hanssen 2004), its
socio/cultural anthropological reading,first attempted to great acclaim by MichaelTaussig
(1993),relied more on Susan Buck-Morss's reception ofthe work in tandem with Benjamin's
rather less impenetrable writings on photography and more generally mechanical repro-
duction (Benjamin 20()8).'These technologies',Buck-Morss(1989:267) claimed,'provide
human beings with unprecedented perceptual acuity, out of which,Benjamin believed, a
less magical, more scientific form of mimetic faculty was developing in his own era'.This
reading managed to create an unexpected and fruitful synergy between different motions
(and eras) in Benjamin's thinking. ForTaussig, it provided an opportunity to explore the
notion that modem mass culture 'both stimulates and is predicated upon mimetic modes
of perception'(1993: 20) and to ask in which ways,in the context of colonialism,'just as
histories enter into the functioning of the mimetic faculty, so the mimetic faculty enters
into those histories'(p. xiv).
Although it did not escape criticism by more normative scholars ofcriticai theory (e.g.
Jay 1993),'l"aussig's analysis proceeded by means ofa multilayered and entangled approach
of mimetic phenomena. l hese centrally included the employment offigurines carved in
the form ofEuropeans in shamanic healing rituais amongst the C Aina ofSan Blas (Panama),
and Hauka spirit possession rituais in Niger. The question linking these cases was one
related to mimesis as a technology of becoming other and, more specifically, the colonial
other.Taussig sought to illuminate the implications of this as regards, on the one hand,
anti-colonial resistance and,on the other hand,European encoiinters with these mimetic
phenomena;the latter including the anthropologist s own encountcr with them,and the
way in which,'The very mimicry corrodes the alterity by which (ourj science is nour-
ished' (p. 8). In this way,Taussig ingeniously rendered mimesis into an anthropological
dialectical image and at the same time into a dialectical image of anthropology.
For the purposes ofthis chapter,I will briefly discussTaussigs I lauka example,as it is the
one that has brought his approach ofthe mimetic faculty in the broadest dialogue with other
anthropologists and their work,Examining the Hauka movement amongst the Songhay in
the late 1920s,Taussig focused on spirit possession practices. In particular, his attention was
caught by the way in which the Hauka engaged in the mimicry ofcolonial figures;a process
in which the possessed copied the posture and mannerisms of colonial officers, or even,
with incredible choreographic dexterity, the motion and sound of colonial locomotives,
whilst at the same time including bodily traits,such as frothing, body jerking or the bulging
ofeyes,that were quite removed firom a European or colonial body image.
Approaching this contradicdon in critical-theoretical terms, insofar as it was seen as a
dialectical image of colonialism,Taussig argued that:
It's the ability to become possessed, the ability that signifies to Huropeans awesome
Otherness if not downright savagery, that allows them to assume the identity of the
European, and, at the same time, stand clearly and irrevocably eye-bulgingly apart
finm it.
(1993:241)
Still,Taussig was more interested in the'capture'of this movement by arguably anthropol-

ogy's greatest auteur,Jean Rouch,in his famous (and for decades banned) documentary
Les mattresJaus; a film whose powerful effect he traces back to the 'interaction of miming
bodies and mimetic machinery'(p.244);that is, the bodies ofthe possessed and the motion
camera used to capture their movement.
Taussig's understanding of Rouch's film as an instance of'an era of the borderland
where"us" and"them"lose their polarity and swim in and out of focus'(p. 246) borrows
ffom Brecht's notions of dramatic distanciation/estrangement (the so-called V-effekt) (see
Jameson 1998) and also from Roger CaiIlois's work on mimicry not as a process ofstriving
to be similar to something, but just to be similar (1984), so as to provocatively proclaim
that,'What's being mimicked is mimicry itself (Taussig 1993: 241). Following Buck-
Morss's synthesis of Benjamin's work,Taussig then goes on to argue that the film:
borrows firom the magical practice of mimesis in its very filming of it... In this colo
nial world where the camera meets those possessed by gods, we can truly point to the
Western rebirth of the mimetic faculty by means of modernity*s mimetic machinery.
(p.242)
Although this reading of mimesis, and of Rouch's film in particular, has not remained
uncontested (e.g. Kien 2002),Taussig's approach of the mimetic faculty sparked a lasting
debate in postcoloniiil studics and visual antliropology,and at the same time related to core
anthropological questions insofar as it postulated that mimesis is a fiindamentaliy sensuous
process.
Deveioped at a time whcn anthropology and the social sciences as a whole assumed a
new and,in some occasions, rigorous interest in the body and embodiment,this provided
fertile ground for discussion, leading Paul Stoller (1995) to argue for a mode of'corporal
knowing'that involvcd processes siich as sorcerî Returning toTaussig*s reading ofPrazer's
notion ofsynipathetic inagic, or the idea that'the magician infers that he can produce any
effect he desires merely by imitating it' (1993: 47) via Benjaniin's notion of mimesis,
Stoller gives us the exaniple of a Songhay sorcerer who crafts copies of magical bows and
arrovvs to which he speaks,'naming a victim', Shooting die arrow,Stoller writes,in what
may be counted in itself as a powerful inoment of mimetic writíng in anthropological
literature:
[T]he replica fills harnilessly on the ground in the victim's dwelling or village, but
the 'inner' arrow flies through the night air. And if a sorcerer's aim is good ... the
'inner' arrow strikes its victim. Victims will wake up in the middle of the night,
screaming, with pain shooting up their leg. Once struck, they become increasingly
weaker. And if they don't seek a cure, they will most certainly die fiom an invisible
(inner) wound.
(1995:41)
Forming an importam part of contemporary anthropological studies of embodiment,the

mimetic faculty has more recendy also found a novel and chaUenging application in a
prominent example of anthropology's ontological turn (see chapter 14). In his book Soul
Hunters, Rane Willcrslev (2007) explored the way in which moose hunting amongst the
Yukaghirs of Sibéria is predicated upon the power of mimesis.Arguingfor an approach of
'animism as mimesis',Willcrslev weaves an intricate ethnography that contests the view
that the former is a system whereupon humans treat animais 'as if they were persons.
Going beyond a metaphorical reading ofanimism requires.Willerslev argues,an approach
of it as a mimetic practice through which animais and humans are implicated in a 'para-
doxical situation of mutual mimicry'(p. 11). In a move characteristic of anthropological
trends in the last decade,Willcrslev thus turns away ffom the hitherto dominant study of
mimesis in relation to colonialism, in order to explore the faculty's ontological potentíal.
Focusing his attention on the way in which 'the copy ha[s] to resemble the original in
order for the copy to take power over what it is a copy to'(p. 11), he asks us to rethink
mimesis as a process of imperfect doubling.Willerslev thus asserts that it is this imperfec-
tion,'copiedness' or differcnce, rather than sensuous contact, that is the operatíve faculty
in mimesis; what,in other words, allows the imitator (hunter) to exercise power over the
imitated (prey) by bcing able to maintain a double perspective - that ofbeing not-selfand
not-not-self, not-animal and not-not-animal,at one and the same time.Ifwe want to talk
about'perspectivism', or the way in which human/non-human relations rely on the dif-
ference and exchange of perspectives of themselves and ofothers (especially as this applies
in Amazônia, as shown by Eduardo Viveiros de Castro; see chapter 14),Willerslev argues,
in theYukaghir context this necds to be seen as a process ofmimetic empathy'based not
on'moving from one point of view to another'but rather on'not surrendering to a single
point of view'(p. 110; see also Bubandt and Willerslev 2015).
168 Chrístos Lynteris
Prospects and períls

Moving thus fix>m political resistance to ontological suspension by way of corporeal know-
ledge and perspectivai empathy, the critical-theoretical notion of niinicsis may be said to
operate not simply as a dialectical image ofthe societies under cxaniination but at the same
time as an image ofthe critical-theoretical potential ofanthropological thinking at different
historical moments.What is unique about this potential is the vvay in which it differs from
other anthropological traditions ofcritiquing setded cr so-callcd mastcr narratives, particu-
larly prevalent in the discipline since the 1980s.Whereas the aini ofthe fornier, is to *decon-
struct' and'demystify'social realities, the primary aim of criticai thcor)' is not negation but
redemption: in other words,'to facilitate the construction of new fornis of social life fix)m
the glimpses provided ofalternative futures when otherwise concealcd or forgotten connec-
tions with the past [are] revealed'(Taussig 1984:89).To forgct this, and to read the anthro
pological potential ofcriticai theory as part or an appendix orpostinodcrn'or deconstructive
approaches in the discipline would be to decouple the said dialectical notions both fix)m
their history and fiom their emancipatory potential. Reducing theni thus to intellectual
fetishes,in other words to abstractions that may be 'applied' to difFerent ethnographic con-
texts vvith more or less currency or'success', poses an acute analytical peril, ali the more as
criticai theory's position outside the social theoretical canon of anthropology makes it par-
ticularly vulnerable to misuse.Examples of this range from political anthropological uses of
Benjamin's ideas orexception'and'state ofemergency'(especially as elaborated upon by the
Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben) that ignore both the coinplex theoretical genealogy
and the dialectical potential ofthe notions (Jennings 2011),to the pervasive habit to decon-
textualise and trivialise poetically evocative but also philosophical coniplex tracts from the
former's Times on the Philosophy ofHistory such as Benjamins commentary on the image of
Paul Klee's Angelus Novus, who is propelled by the storm of progress *into the future to
which his back is tumed,while the pile ofdebris before him grows skyward'(1999:249).
Criticai theory and the writings of the Frankfurt School and its associates stand at a
paradoxical relation with institutional socio/cultural anthropology. Whilst the criticai
potential of its anthropological materialist method and analysis pervades socio/cultural
anthropological approaches,often becoming visible in the explicit eniployment of notions
such as mimesis,ruination or exception, with the exception ofTaussig, and by contrast to
urban studies, geography or poHtical theory, anthropology as a discipline has not system-
atically engaged with the critical-theoretical corpus. Much more than the proverbial reading
'against the grain', as a major European tradition of criticai engagement with modernity
and its darkest consequences,criticai theory remains for anthropology a vast and challeng-
ing resource ofsocial theoretical thinking.
References
Abélès,M.2008.Anthropologie,anticipation,utopie. Cahiers (Panthropologic sociale 4: Walter Beitjamiif,

Ia tradition des vaincus: 13-25.
Adorno,T.W. 1939. Radio Physiognomik. Frankfiirt-am-Maim:Adorno F.state.
Adorno,T.W.2001. The Culture Industry: Sekcted Essays on Mass Culture. I.ondon: Routledge.
Adorno,T.W., E. Frenkel-Brunswik and D.J. Levinson 1990 [19511. The Aiithontiiritni Pcrsonality.
London: Norton.
Agamben,G.,Chitussi,B.and Hárle C.-C.2013. Baudelaire, by Walter Beiijainin, translated by Patrick
Charbonneau, Martin Rueff,and Étienne Dobenesque. Paris: La lâbrique éditions.
Appadurai, A. 1996. Modmiit)' ot Ltnjê: Cultural Ditueusions in Globalization. Is/úrmespohs, MN:

University of Minncsota Press.
Argyrou.V. 2002. Autliropolo^»)' and the I Vill to Meauing:A Postcolonial Cníiîie, London:Pluto Press.
Benjamin, W. 1979 [1935|. Doctrine of the similar, translated by Knut Tarnowski. New Gennan
Critique 17, Special Waiter Benjamin Issue (Spring 1979):65-69.
1999 [1940]. Illuiniuatious, translated by Harr\' Zorn.London:Pimlico.
2002. lhe A nades Projeit, translated by Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin.Cambridge,MA:
Harvard University Press.
2003[1940]. Ou Some Motifs iu Baudelaire. In Hovvard Eiland and MichjelW.Jennings (eds)
Waiter Benjamin .Selected Writings,Volume 4, 1938-1940, translated by Edmunt Jephcott and
others, pp. 313-355. Câmbridge MA:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
2005 [1933]. On the mimetic faciilt>'. In M.W.Jennings, H. Eiland and G. Smith (eds.),
Waiter Bettjamin Selected Writiutis, Volume 2, Part 2, 1931-1934,translated by Rodney Livingston
and others, pp. 720-722. Cambridge, MA:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
2006 [1935]. Exchange with Theodor W. Adorno on the essay 'Paris, the capital of the
nineteenth centiiry'. In I Valter Benjamin Selected Writings, Volume 3, Part 2, 1935—1936,translated
by Edmund Jephcott, Howard Eiland and others, pp.50-67. Cambridge,MA;The Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press.
2008 [1936]. l he Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproductíon. London:
Penguin.
Berdet,M.2012.Chiftbnnier contre flàneur:Construction et position de Ia Passagenarbeit de Waiter
Benjamin. Archives de Philosophie 75 (3): 425-447.
Bernstein,J. 1994. Introductory essay: Criticai theory - the very idea (reflections on nihilism and
domination). In J. Bernstein (ed.), Praukfurt School, Criticai Assessments,Vo\A,pp. 1-40. London
and NewYork, NY; Routledge.
Brand, D. 1991. 77/c Spectator and the City in Nineteenth Century American Literature. Cambridge:
Cambridge University- Press.
Bubandt,B. and Willerslev. R.2015.The dark side of empathy: Mimesis,deception,and the magic
ofalterity, Comparative Studies in Society and History 57 (1): 5-34.
Buck-Morss, S. 1977. lhe Origin of Negative Dialects. Theodor WAdorno, Waiter Benjamin, and the
Frankfurt School. NewYork, NYiThe Free Press.
1989. The Dialectics of Seeing. Waiter Benjamin and the Arcades Project. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
2006.The flâneur,the sandwichman and the whore:The poUtics ofloitering. In B.Hanseen
(ed.), Waiter Benjamin and lhe Arcades Project, pp. 33-65.London and NewYork:Conrinuum.
Cadava, E. 1997. I Vords of Light: Theses on the Photography of History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Caillois, R. 1984 [1935]. Mimicry and Legendary Psychasthenia, translated by John Shepley.
October31 (Winter): 16-32.
Coates.J. 2017. Key figure ot mobility:The flâneur. Social Anthropology 25 (1): 28-41.
Cvoro, U. 2008. Dialectical image today. Continuum,Journal of Media and Cultural Studies 22 (1):
89-98.
Erickson, P.A. and L.D. Murphy 2008. A History of Anthropological Theory, 3rd edition. Ontario:
University ofToronto Press.
Fischer, M.M.j. 2009. Anthropological Futures. Durham,NC and London:Duke University Press.
Gordillo, G. 2011. Ships stranded in the forest: Debris of progress on a phantom river. Current
Anthropology 52(2): 141-167.
Hartmaan, M. 2004. lechnologies and utopias: The cyberflaneur and the experience ofbeing
Online*(Doctoral thesis, University ofWestminster,London).
Hanssen, B. 2004. Language and mimesis in Waiter Benjamin's work. In D.S. Ferris (ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to Waiter Benjamin, pp. 54—72. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Hogan,A.2016. Network ethnography and the cyberflâneur: Evolving policy sociology in educa-
tion.InternatiomlJournal of Qiialitative Studies itt Education 29 (3): 381—398.
Horkheimer, M.2002 [1937].Traditional theory and criticai theory. In M. Horkheimer, Criticai
Theory, Selected Essays,transbted by M.J.0'ConneU et al., pp. 188-243.1.ondon; Continuum.
Horkheimer, M.and T.W. Adorno 2002 [1944]. Dialectic of Eulightetnneiit, Pliilosopliical Fragments,
transiated by Edmundjephcott.Paio Alto, CA:Stanford University Prcss.
Jameson,F. 1998. Brecht and Method.London:Verso.
Jay, M.1993. Unsympathetic magic. VisualAnthropology Review 9: 2 (Fali): 79-82.
1996 [1973]. The Dialectical Imagination:A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of
Social Research í923—1950.Betkdey,CA:University of Califórnia Press.
Jenks,C.andT.Neves 2000.A walk on the wild side: Urban ethnography mects the flâneur. Cultural
Values 4:1-17.
Jennings, R.C. 2011. Sovereignty and political modernity: A genealogy of Agamben's critique of
sovereignty. Anthropological Theory 11 (1): 23-61.
Kapferer,B.2007.Anthropology and the dialectic of enlightenment: A discourse on the definition
and ideais ofa threatened discipline. TheAustralian Journal ofAnthropology 18 (1): 41—62.
Kellner, D. 1994 [1973].The Frankfurt School revisited: A critique of Martin Jay's The Dialectical
Imagination.In J. Bernstein (ed.),Frankftrt School, Criticai Assessments,Vo\.1, pp. 1—40.London and
New York,NY:Roudedge.
Kien, K. L. 2002. Of mimicry and white man:A psychoanalysis ofJean Rouchs Les niaitresfous.
Cultural Critique 51 (Spring 2002):40-73.
Kõpping, K-P. 2005.The fieldworker as performative flâneur: Some thoughts on postmodernism
and the transfiguration ofdoing anthropology. Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 130 (1); 1-22.
Kramer,K.and J.R.Short 2011. Flânerie and the globalizing city. City 15: 322-342.
Ladwig,P.,R.Roque,O.Tappe,C.Kohl and C.Bastos 2012. Fieldwork Between folders: Fragments,
traces,and the ruins ofcolonial archives. Max Planck Institutefor Social Anthropology Working Papers,
Working Paper No. 141.
Lauster, M. 2007.Walter Benjamin's myth of the 'flâneur'. lhe Modem Language Review 102 (1):
139-156.
Lee Dawdy, S. 2010. Clockpunk anthropology and the ruins of modernity. Current Anthropology
51 (6): 761-793.
Livingstone,J.and L.Gyarkye 2017.Death to the flâneur. New Republic(27 March),https://newrepublic.
com/article/141623/death-flaneur.
Lucas,R.2004.Inscribing the city:A flâneur inTokyo. Anthropology Matters 6 (1): 1-11.
Mali,J. 1999.The reconciliation of myth: Benjamin's homage to Bachofen. Journal of the History of
Ideas 60 (1): 165-187.
Manovich,L.2001. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.
Menninghaus,W. 1991.Walter Benjamin's theory of myth. In G. Smith (ed.), On Walter Benjaniin:
Criticai Essays and Recollections, pp. 292-325. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.
Mateus, G.1995a. TheTrqffic in Culture: RefguringArt and Anthropology. Berkeley, CA: University of
Califórnia Press.
1995b.The modernist sensibility in recent ethnographic writing and the cinematic metaphor
of montage.In L. Devereaux and R.Hillman (eds.), Fields ofVision: Essays in Fihn Studies, lÃsual
Anthropology, and Photography, pp. 35-55. Berkeley, CA:University of Califórnia Press.
Marcus,G.and M.M.J. Fischer 1986. Anthropology as a Cultural Critique:Afi Experimental Monient in
the Human Sciences. Chicago,IL: Chicago University Press.
Morris,B.2014.Anthropology and the Human Subject. Bloomington;Trafford.
Nas, E. 2012. The urban anthropologist as flâneur: The symbolic pattern of Indonesian cides.
Wacana,Journal ofthe Humanities of hidonesia 14:429-454.
Navaro-Yashin,Y. 2009. Affecdve spaces, melancholic objects; Ruination and the production of
anthropological knowledge.JoMmd/ of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15(1): 1-18.
Okely,J. 2012. Anthropoloîúil Practicc: Fieldwork and the Ethuographic Method. London:Berg.
Pensky, Max 2004. Method and time: Benjaniin s dialecticaJ images. In David S. Ferris (ed.), The
Cambridge Conipanioii to II a/ter Benjaniin, pp. 177-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
2006. Geheinnnittcl: Advertising and diaiecrical images in Benjamin's Arcades Project. In
B. Hanseen (ed.). IValter Benjaniin and The Arcades Project, pp. 113—131. London and NewYork,
NY:Continiuim.
Rabinbach,A. 1979. Introdnction to Wiilter Benjamin's'Doctrine of the similar'. New Germati Cri
tique, 17 Spccial Waiter Benjaniin Issue (Spring): 60-64.
Rjchter, G. 2006. A niatter of distance: Benjamin's One-lVay Street through The Arcades. In B.
Hanseen (ed.). Il<í//er Benjaniin and the Arcades Projea,pp. 132-256. London and NewYork,NY:
Continuum.
Soukup,C.2012. l he postmodern ethnographic flàneur and the study ofhyper-mediated everyday
\i(e.Journal of Contemporary lithnography 42 (2): 226—254.
Stephen.B.2013.In praise ofthe tlâneur. The Paris Rei4e»'. October 17,https;//www.theparisreview.
org/blog/2013/10/17/in-praise-of-the-flaneur/.
Stoler,A.L. 2013. Imperial Debris: On Ruins and Ruination. Durham,NC:Duke University Press.
StoUer, P. 1995. Hmbodying Colonial Meniories: Spirit Possession, Pam and the Hauka in IVestAJHca.
NewYork, NY and I ondon: Routledge.
Taussig, M.1984. Mistory a.s sorcery. Representations 1 (Summer):87—109.
1986. Shanianisni, Colonialisni and the Wild Man.A Study in Terror and Heaíing. Chicago,IL:
University of Chicago Press.
1989. History as coniinodity. In some recent American (anthropological) literature. Critique
ofAnthropology 9 (1): 7—23.
1993. Miniesis andAlterity:A Partiadar History ofthe Senses.Chicago,IL:Chicago University Press.
Tiedemann, R. 1999. Dialectics at a standstill. In Waiter Benjaniin The Arcades Project, translated by
Howard Eiland and Kevin McLanghlin. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press
Weigel, S. 1996. Body- and Iniage-Space: Re-Reading IValter Benjaniin. London:Routledge.
Willerslev, R. 2007. Soiil Hnnters, Hunting, Animism, and Personhood aniong the Siberian Yukaghirs.
Berkeley, CA: University of C"alifornia Press.
Wohlfarth,1.1986. Et ceterarThe historian as chiffonnier. New Cennan Critique,39,Seconá Special
Issue on Waiter Benjaniin (Autumn): 142—168.
Selected further reading

Adorno,T.W. 1981 [1966]. Negative Dialectics. London: Continuum.
1999. Introdnction to Sociology, translated by Edmund Jephcott. Paio Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
2005 [1951 ]. Mininia Aloralia: ReJIections on Daniaged Ufe. London:Verso.
Arendt, H. 1967. Men in Dark Times. NewYork,NY:Harcourt Publishers.
Benjamin,A.(ed.) 2005. IValter Benjaniin and History. London:Continuum.
Benjamin,W. 2009. The Origin of Cernian Tragic Drama. London:Verso.
Bernstein,J.M. 2010. Adorno: Disenchantnient and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connerton, P. 1980. The Tragedy of Enlightemnent. An Essay on the Franifurt School. Cambridge:
Dews, P. 2007. Logics of Disintegration: Poststructiiralist Thought and the Claims for Criticai Theory.
London:Verso.
Gilloch, G. 2002. l^Valter Benjaniin: Criticai Constellations. London:Poüty.
Jameson, E 2007. Dite Marxisni:Adorno: Or, the Persistence ofthe Dialectic. London:Verso.
Jennings, M. 1987. Dialectical Images: Waiter Benjanun's Theory of Literary Criticisní. NewYork, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Hanssen, B. 2000. Walter Benjamin's Other History: Of Stones, Animais, Hiimati Beín^s, and Angels.
Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.
Gilloch, G.1999. Myth and Metropolis: Walter Benjamin and tUe City. London: Polity.
Leslie,E.2000. Walter Benjamin. Overpowering Confonnism. London: Pluto Press.
Lowy,M.2016.FireAlann:Reading Walter Benjamin's 'On the Concept of History'. London;Verso.
0'Connor, B. 2004. Adortto's Negative Dialectic: Philosopliy and the Possihility of Criticai Rationality.
Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Richter, G.2016. Inheriting Walter Benjamin. London:Bloomsbury.
Rose, G. 2010. The Melancholy ScienceiAn Introduction to the Thought o/Theodor W Adorno. London:
Verso.
Ross,A.2016. Wilter Benjamin's Concept ofthe Image. London: Routledge.
Savage,M.2000.Walter Benjaniin's urban thought.A criticai analysis. In Mike Crang and N.J.Thrift
(eds.), Vtinking Space, pp.33-53.London and New York, NY:Routledge.
Smith,C.2006. Resurrecting Benjamin. Anthropological Quarterly 79(3): 541-546.
Taussig, M.1989.Terror as usual:Walter Benjamin's theory of history as a state of siege. Social Text
23(Autumn-Winter):3-20.
2006. Walter Benjamin's Grave. Chicago,IL: Chicago University Press.
Wheadand,T.2009.Franlfurt School in Exile. Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.
Wolin,R.1994. Walter Benjamin:An Aesthetic ofRedemption. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Chapter 10
The anthropological líves

of Míchel Foucault
James Laidiaw
Although not hiniselfiin anthropologist,the French scholar Michel Foucault(1926-1984),

who styled hinisclf a iiistorian ofsystems of thought', has been one ofthe most powerfld
influences on anthropological theory since the 1970s. That influence has come in two
forms and in two stages, through respectively his earlier and later writings.The formar
includes the books published in Hnglish as Jlie Birth ofthe Cliuic(1973 [1963]), Tlie Order
o/Things (1970 (1966|), Discipline and Pnnish (1977 [1975]) and the pivotal work that
belongs in both groups,'lhe History ofSexnality (1978 [1976]).The latter group includes a
number of essays,intcrviews and lectures along with the second and third volumes oíThe
History of Sextiaíity series, that together consritute the project that Foucault referred to as
his'genealogy of ethics'. A complex debate could be had about the extent ofthe continu-
ities across Foucault's whole oeuvre. In an exegesis of Foucault's own thinking, it would
be a mistake to imply too radical a disjunction in what is a continuous, developing intel-
lectual project; but since my concern here is to give an account of Foucault's writings as
they have most influenced anthropology, I shaU organize my discussion around this fairly
clear and consequcntial break, because in a sense, and notwithstanding the unity of
Foucault's overall intcllectual project, he has appeared in the history of anthropological
theory as two somewhat different Foucaults.
The earlier F-oucault provided anthropologists with an account ofEuropean modernity,
one that informed their understanding in particular of colonialism and how the societies
they studied had been shaped by European colonial rule (e.g. Rabinow 1995;Bayly 1996;
Cohn 1996; Inda 2005), and associated with this an understanding of anthropology itself
(e.g. Clifford and Marcus 1986; Marcus 1998;Rabinow 2003; Faubion and Marcus 2009),
and its place in colonial systems of power (e.g. Mitchell 1988;Thomas 1994;Stoler 2005).
This understanding of modernity was underpinned not by any one publication of
Foucault's exclusively, but by certain features that were common to ali his work during
this period. Each of his major works described an aspect ofa general,radical discontinuity
in the organization of knowledge, as what Foucault called 'the classical age' gave way to
the modem era. In each case, new forms of knowledge were embodied in new institu-
tions, that both regulatcd and policed the emerging new 'disciplines' they presided over,
and oversaw the 'disciplining' of those to whom these new forms of knowledge were
applied: the mad, the sick, criminais, and increasingly, whole populations. Aspects of this
same general change in the mode of governance of European states were visible in the
'great confinement' of the mad into asylums (Foucault 2006 [1961]); in new forms of
medicai science, including the creation of new institutions to give effect to a distinctively
authoritative medicai 'gaze'(1973 [1963]); and in a kaleidoscopic reconfigurarion of the
174 James Laidiaw
disciplines of what are now the humanities and social sciences, as 'the human* became
constitiited as the central organizing category ofour knowledgc ofoursclvcs in the modem
era (1970 [1966]). Of course, the fact that this whole regime of truth could now be
grasped, as fix>m the outside, was for Foucault evidence that the era of'the human' was
beginning to draw to a dose.
Discipline and Punish (1977 [1975]) was at the same time a recapiculation of the same
general narrative as those earlier works,something ofan outlier in its mode ofexplanarion,
and the most rhetorically effective and encompassing account so far. It was also the most
generally influentíal ofhis books to date,including in anthropology. It begins with a strik-
ing contrast between two modes ofpunishment:the spectacular niulti-stage public torture,
mutálatíon, execution and dismemberment of an unsuccesful regicide; and the regime of
a boys'prison,in which physical violence is much less important than a niinutely specified
timetable of activitíes, designed to reform and shape the conduct of the inmates, by
instilling disciplined habits and dispositions. Only a few decades separate these exemplars
of what Foucault proposes are radically different modalities of power and knowledge.
Spectacular pubhc display of the force of the sovereign's will, exercised direcdy on the
body,is superseded (though such force is never entirely replaced, of course) by a routine
designed progressively to reform inmates, so to speak,from the inside out.This internal-
ization and normalization is exemplified most vividly in Jeremy Bentham s famous design
for a'panopticon'prison,in which the ever-present but always in fact uncertain possibüity
ofsurveillance by a prison guard reforms the inmate s conduct by training him or her in
self-surveillance.The very form ofthe building,in conjunction with a daily regimen similar
to that of the boys' prison, makes it a machine for reforming the inner dispositions, and
hence the externai conduct,of the prisoner.
Bentham's prison was never built in exactly the form he envisaged, but it was widely
influential on prison design and the design of other more or less total institutions such as
schools and chnics; and Foucault suggests that it neady summarizes the basic workings
ofthe prevaihng configuration of power and knowledge in the modem world. In the old
regime,knowledge had an externai relation to power,as it was characteristically addressed
to the sovereign in the form of petition or appeal (or'speaking truth to power'), whereas
in a regime of disciplinary power tmth is constitutive of the power that acts upon and
reconstitutes the subject as an object ofreform.This internai relation of truth to power lies
behind the use of the expression 'power/knowledge'. Attention in criminal justice shifts
from the material form of forbidden and prohibited acts, to the 'passions, anomalies,
infirmities' and other internai states that reveal the real nature of an act. Insanity stops
being a reason to put a case outside the judicial system,and becomes instead a factor to be
weighed within it, as psychiatric expertise is included in the creation of'medico-judicial
treatment'.The line between criminality and society at large is blurred as similar modes of
knowledge govern and seek to reform the population as a whole,in population manage-
ment, city planning and the modem 'social sciences', and the mature realizarion of this
mode ofgovernance, which Foucault refers to as'biopower', is found in the 20th-century
European welfare state.
One of the reasons reading Discipline and Punish was such a revelatory experience for
many,was that it invited radical reconsideration and moral re-evaluation of what had been
accepted as a simple story ofenlightened reform and increasing humanity. Foucault invites
us to see the new stress on 'rehabilitation' not as simply more lenient and humane than its
punitive predecessors, but also as a more uncompromising and intrusive intervenrion, a
Michel Foucault 175
thoroughly mechaniciil rc-cngincering of the subject, a more thoroughgoing and total

control than externai coercion alone could ever achieve.By the end ofthis process, asserts
Foucault in a joking inversion of Placo,'the soul is the prison ofthe body'.
It had been a notable feature of Foucault s earlier works that profound change in the
configuration of power/knowledge was described, without a causai account being offèred
ofhow or why that change came about.While in some respects acutely observant socio-
logically, he largely did w ithout notions of grand historical forces, and recognized no
obligation to explain ideas or how they changed in reductive or materiahst terms: so
Foucault's use of'discourse' in his analyses ofsystems of power/knowledge conspicuously
eschews two ideas inherent in Marxist concepts of'ideology': that the ideas in questàon
were the distortion or inversion of a truth to which our (historical-materialist) theory
would independently give us objective and certain access, unavailable to those within the
system in question; and tiiat those distortions and inversions were invariably and necessarily
in the service of identifiable interests (to whose idenrity, again, our theory would give us
access). So it is no surprise that F-oucault frequendy distanced himselfftom Marxism,and
also from the other all-encoinpassing meta-narrative and totalizing explanatory frame-
work of his day,1 reudian psychoanalysis. His mode ofthought and scholarship was indeed
profoundly inimical to botii these systems, so there is no reason he should have felt any
need of them, but the strength of his anripathy was no doubt due in part to the patholo-
gizing of homosexualiry in tiie Freudian thought of his time,and to his experience ofthe
totalitarian Marxism (totalitarian both in form and in content) that Louis Althusser
imposed on so much of French intellectual life, Foucault having experienced it at dose
quarters in his youth at the Ecole Normale Supérieure.This latter experience was rein-
forced by his brief experience of'actually exisring socialism' in Poland in 1958 to 1959
(on Foucault's life, see I-ribon 1991; Macey 1993; Miller 1993; and on Foucault in intel
lectual context in France see Paras 2006; Bourg 2007). Discipline and Punish is a parcial
exception to ali of this. Influenced at the time by his friendship with Gilles Deleuze,that
book admits of being read (e.g. Hoy 1986) as arguing the conventional Marxist case that
the changes it describes occurred because they were funcrional for a capitaHst poUtical
economy. And niany, including anthropologists, whose acquaintance with Foucault's
thought has been principally with this book, have thought it natural to mix Foucauldian
and Marxist ideas. However,the book Foucault began writing the very day Discipline and
Punish was finished, the firsr volume of a projected History ofSexualityfdts arguments are
accepted, decisively rules this out by rejecting the specific Marxist-functionahst argument
that can be seen in the earlier book,and with it also both Marxist historical materialism
and Freudian psychoanalysis, and indeed the synthesis of those two systems that domi-
nated French Leftist intellectual circles at that time. Iflater authors,including anthropol
ogists, have missed the depth and significance ofthe move Foucault made between these
two books, Deleuze himself did not: he never spoke again to Foucault after reading the
book that would be published in English as The History of Sexuality.
Like its predecessor, i lw History of Sexuality proceeds by debunking a widely accepted
narrative, but instead of the liberal-progressive account of an increasingly humane penal
system, this time what is repudiated is a Marxist-Freudian construction that Foucault calls
'the repressivo hypothesis'. 1 his was the idea, virtually unchallenged in Leftist thought of
the time, and articulated by thinkers as otherwise different as Marcuse and Deleuze, that
capitalism requires for its functioning, and therefore has brought about, pervasive sexual
repression, as a sort of monstrously paranoid mechanism oflabour discipÜne. It followed,
176 James Laidiaw
according to this'hypothesis',that the liberation ofsexual desire - anything and everything

that defies bourgeois sexual repression - is a step towards bringing down the capitalist
system. Foucault has four decisive objections to the repressivo hypothesis. Far from the
development of capitalism being accompanied by a repressivo stifling of ali talk of sexual
desire, the period saw instead a 'discursivo explosion' in relation to sex: a proliferation of
new disciplines that claimed to know the truth about sex and its significance for educa-
tion,fertálity and mental and physical health.Power has thereforc come to be exercised by
prohibiting the expression ofsexual desire,but instead through techniqucs for the elidtation
of expressions of desire: rituais for speaking the truth about the self as the truth of one*s
desires.Thus'sexuaHty' was not an eternal good requiring liberation, but an invention of
this period,as persons with different sexual desires had become dcfined as distinct human
types,whose essential truth is revealed by those desires.This means that the Marxist—Freudian
idea of hberatíng*sexuahty'is not a form of effective resistance to the prevailing forms of
power/knowledge,but an unwitting and complicit intensification of them.The prophets
of the sexual revolution were extending and completing the work of the therapists and
other speciahsts: requiring us to speak to them of our desires, and to accept the truth so
revealed as our essential nature, so that our freedom can consist of nothing but the
obhgation to be faithfiil to that nature. Ifsexual repression had really been essential to the
capitahst system, quipped Foucault,it would scarcely have given way to permissiveness so
readily.
The analysis of the importance offorms of knowledge about sex, reproduction, health
and populations in modem forms ofgovernance (biopolitics) developed in The History of
SexuaHty left Foucault with two new questions. First, if the understanding of freedom
offered by the prophets of'Hberation' was so flawed (and a dangerous trap), how then is
'freedom'to be understood? How might a freedom worth exercising be conceived? And
second, how was it that European societies had come to seek the truth of the self — such
that 'it' might be thought to need liberation - in sexual desire? Where did the subject of
'sexuahty'come from? Answering these questions is what turned the 'history ofsexuality',
as envisaged in The History ofSexuality,into a rather different project, as it in fact appeared
in the two subsequent volumes of the series, and that Foucault entitled his 'genealogy of
ethics'.
The History ofSexuality contained a programme for uncovering'the historical ontology
of ourselves',the process whereby the modem desiring subject had come into being and
come to be experienced as natural and necessary. Foucault's genealogical method,discov-
ering the contingency ofthe apparently necessary by tracing the points at which its com-
ponents had come together, was adapted from Nietzsche (1994 11887]). Foucault initially
assumed that this genealogy could be accomplished, as had ali his previous works,largely
within the chronological span of post-Renaissance Europe. But he found that in order to
find the point at which the question of the subject was posed in a coherent and consis-
tently different way,he had to go much further back in time.And the same was true ofthe
question of power and freedom.
In one of his most important later essays,'The subject and power'(in Foucault 2006),
Foucault lays the groundwork for his genealogical investigation offreedom by announcing
the necessity of developing what he called a 'non-juridical concept of power': that is to
say, a conception of power not limited by the imagination of sovereignty, in which the
exercise of power takes the form of prohibition, and in which it makes sense to think of
knowledge as exterior to power.This then was a direct development of a central theme in
Míchel Foucault 177
earlier works,sucli as tlic History ojWhidiiess and Discipline and Pimish,2nd a reason not to
see a radical discontinuity bctwccn the carly and late Foucault. He distinguishes what he
calls power,as typically exercised in soci;il relations,from'capacity',or sheer physical force.
The latter does of coiirse play some part in human relations, but for the most part, we do
not act on other pcople and cause theni to act as we wish by the exercise ofsuch brute
capacity (as we might push a cart or cage an animal).Instead,we iníluence others assubjects
with their own intcntions and capacities,so that they take the action we wish ofthem.This
Foucault referred to as the condiict ofconduct;it is a matter oforchestrating,or conducting,
as with a musical cnscmblc; and therefore the exercise of power among persons involves
reckoning with the frccdom of each other. It means influencing what others do, by means
of their freedom. It is incoherent to imagine, therefore, that there could ever be a society
without relations of power,or that we become'more free' by the lemoval ofpower.Free
dom cannot be an absence of power:'power exists only over free subjects,and only insofar
as they are "free"'. Unfortunately, our understanding of power,including the ideas of the
prophets of'liberation' but also those of most thinkers in the hberal tradition, continued
to be dominated by the now largely anachronistic problem ofresisring the coercive power
of the sovereign state. Was there a time when our thought had not been so constrained?
When had the qucstion of freedom been posed other than as the absence of power? Not
coincidentally, l oucault concluded that the answer to this question was the same as the
answer to the question of when the subject had been understood other than as the subject
of desires. Both the subject and freedom had been systematically understood in fimda-
mentally different ways in classical Athens.
This conclusion delayed the completion of the succeeding volumes of the History,
because they now had to take a shape, and concern an historical period, quite different
from what was envisaged in the first volume,and Foucault had to master whole new periods
and bodies of texts. l he 'latcr Foucault', who is the second decisive influence on anthro-
pology, is a remarkably unificd project, referred to by Foucault as his'genealogy ofethics'.
The writings cover roughly a millennium and consist oftwo further volumes o(History of
Sexuality, one on classical Athens and one on the Hellenistic period - an incomplete
fourth volume on early C^hristianity remains unpublished, according to Foucaulfs own
instructions - together with a nuniber of associated essays and lecture series.
In terms of the influence of this project on anthropology, we should begin with the set
ofconcepts and analytics Foucault developed in order to carry it out, because in addition
to being influenced by his substantive conclusions about the history of European ethical
Üfe,anthropologists have adopted and adapted major components ofthis apparatus as they
have approached the ethical life of quite other times and places.There are three principal
components.
The first is the notion of subjectivation (assujetissement) to describe the processes by
which a subject is constitutcd.The important point here is that these processes are located
within, but not reducible to, social structures and institutional contexts.The subject also,
in Foucault s view, actively participates in its own self-constitution, notably through its
capacity for reflective thought ('freedom in relation to what one does'): the capacity, that
is, to establish some reflective distance from oneself, to constitute oneself and one's own
conduct as an object of knowledge,and to act in such a way as to modify it.The recogni-
tion of this possibility is a major point of divergence from materiaUst reductionism, and
fiom the structural Marxism ofAlthusser and others. It is in this context that we must see
Foucault's remarks on his own earlier studies ofasylums and prisons,that those works had
178 James Laidiaw
put too much stress on techniques of domination at thc cxpcnsc ot other dimensions of
power relations.There are, he wrote,techniques of production, tcchiiiqucs of domination
and techniques ofsignification, but there are also techniques of thc sclf. His earlier works
had tended to emphasize the first two, cr in some cases {'l he Order of Tliings and
The Archaeology of Knowledge), the third. But the fourth, tlie techniques by which we
actively participate in our self-constitution as a subjcct, are equally a part of the material
of social life, and a rounded picture of any historical era or social systeni must include
them.
The second component of Foucaulfs method in his genealogy of ethics is a distinction
between moral codes and ethics. By'moral codes', Foucault ineans to rcfcr to rules as to
what one should and should not do,together with the questions of how these are defined,
codified and enforced in institutions, and together also with the questions of how people
variously obey,resist, challenge or evade them.Ali ofthis is an undeniably important part
of any form of moral life. But in addition, it follows froin Foucault s account of subjecti-
vation and reflective thought, there is also what he calls 'ethics', which refers to the ways
in which people respond to injunctions or embrace projects to make theniselves a certain
sort of person.They do not,of course, do so ab hiitio; they find in their culture ideais and
values and exemplars, and in some cases, well laid out projects of self-fashioning or
self-transformation,but it is always to some extent a matter for them how they respond to
these ideais. In any historical epoch or cultural setting, the field of moral discourse and
practice will consist ofboth moral codes and ethics in this sense.'I hey are not entirely
separate matters,but in ali cases'two sides of the same coin'. Nevertheless,some forms of
moral life are more dominated by moral codes; others give a larger place to ethics.And the
variation historically and culturally between forms of moral life is mostly a variation in
ethics.Wherever you look, the moral codes (do not kill; do not steal) show very great
similarities; it is in their ethics, including indeed quite subtle differences in their ethics,
that societies most profoundly differ. Moral codes and ethics may change independendy
ofeach other,and changes in moral life are mostly changes in ethics, as is the case through
the millennium described in Foucault's genealogy of ethics, in which, he claims, moral
codes differ hardly at ali but ethics shifts, slowly but decisively.
That this is so explains the need for the third component of Foucault s method,which
is his analytic for the understanding ofethical projects. I.ithical projects may be compared
and contrasted,writes Foucault,by asking four questions in relation to them. First, what is
their ontol(^? What are the parts or elements of thc self that are of ethical significance?
Shall I focus on,and try to improve, my actions, my desires, my heart, my soul, my virtues?
Second,there is the question of deonío/o^y. What is the modo of subjectivarion by which
I recognize an ethical injunction or standard? As what does it apply to me? Is it because
I am rational, or in response to divine command,or because 1 am a warrior or a king or a
mother,or as a human being? Third,there is the question of(i5rt'//V5. What are the specific
techmques and practices used to carry out the necessary work to eflcct whatever changes
I am aiming at? Must I fast, keep a diary, make confession, practise meditation,exercise die
body? And finally, there is the teleology.Whzt are the qualities or statc I seek to realize, the
telas towards which I am working? Flow do 1 conceive the ideal that guides my conduct?
Insofar as there are one or more reasonably coherent projects of self-formation in exis-
tence,or being advocated,in a certain social context, applying this analytic and answering
these four questions will enable us to draw out their spccificiry, to dctect the subde shifts
in orientation that might take place even if overt rules and regulations remain unchanged.
Michel Foucault 179
and to dravv coniparisons and contrasts bctween even radically difièrent cultural contexts.
Indeed, it cnablcs us to givc thc vague idea of'cultural context'fairly precise content.
Although Foucault took to caliing his new project a 'genealogy of ethics', a term that
better captures its scope and comparative range, he retained'The History ofSexualityTor
the subtides of the two books that were published together, very shordy before his death,
in 1984.Thcse volumes present an analysis of the projects of ethical self-fashioning that
Foucault finds articulated - not often ali together in one place,to be sure - in a range of
polemicai and practical texts providing advice,largely to elite males (as it was to them that
written advice was ahnost exclusively addressed) in the ancient world. 77/e Use ofPleasure
does this for classical Athens, nic Carc of thc Selfíor the Hellenistic period.And it is vital
to norice that these books are contriburions to 'the history of sexuality' in the specific
sense only that they describe a changing world in which 'sexuality* does not yet exist.
The texts that feature in Thc lL<c of Pleasure and The Care of the Selfconcern what we
would now see as a range of topics that overlap but do not even approximately coincide
with our category of'sexualiry': the general topic they have in common,and therefore in
Foucault's terms the //c/d of prohlcnuitiztition with which they are concerned, is aphrodisia:
how to conduct oneself in relation to pleasures. Foucault divides aphrodisia into fourbroad
fields: dietetics and health, including advice on exercise and how to respond to changes in
the weather; marital relations and household management, including how to exercise
authority over one s wife, children and slaves;'erorics', which here refers specifically to
passionate relations with male youths; and the idea that absrinence gave some kind of
special access to truth. For Foucault, these four were structured similarly in the ancient
world because they were a single field of problemadzadon, and constituted the general
area of ethical concern elite males were invited to attend to in their self-culdvation.The
uncompleted History of Scxtiality had become,then,a project for describing how this form
of ethics was slowly transíormed over a millennium and more,and how aphrodisia slowly
gave way to sexuality.
Ali this quite elaborate exegetical apparatus is required to convey what Foucault saw as
the hugely consequential ditlerence between the ethics ofthe ancient world and our own,
beneath its apparent familiarity especially in terms of moral codes. This was a world,
Foucault claimed,in which the self was not understood as defined by its desires.and there
fore the privileged way to know and to reform the self was not through knowing and
altering its desires: hence it was'before sexuality'(see Halperin et al. 1990).And it was,at
the same dme,a world in which the question of what it was to be free was not posed as a
matter of the absence of power.These two facts are closely connected,a connecdon that
is brought out by Foucault's description of the change between the ethics of aphrodisia in
classical Athens and the ethics that first takes shape in late andquity, the latter being the
predecessor of modem 'sexuality', as a transformadon of an aesthetics of existence into a
hermeneutics of desire.
The latter term,although it is not used there,sums up much ofwhat Foucault hadbeen
saying alniost a decade before, in The History of Sexualit)>: even those Leftíst intellectuals
who claim a criticai purchase on our social and political structures nevertheless take for
granted the idea that the essential inner truth of the self is given by our desires; that
because those desires are not immediately transparent to us, we may be guided to self-
knowledge by experts in their decipherment;and that liberadon consists in our being'true
to'the nature they reveal for us,and requires therefore only the removal ofconstraints on its
expression. But for Foucault, this 'liberation' was a kind ofservitude and an evasion of our
180 James Laídiaw
responsibility for ourselves, because it involves accepting an alvvays-alrcady given fact of

the matter of who we essentíally and necessarily are.
There is, of coune,no reason why anthropologists, any more than anyone else, should
necessarily agree with Foucaulfs personal and political prefcrcnces liere, on the value of
self-creation as opposed to what He saw as the fictions of self-discovery and 'authenticity'.
Where his scepticism does speak direcdy to anthropologists, as anthropologists, is in his
impetus to consnlt the fuU range of human social experience, bcfore accepting any aspect
of our contemporary self-understanding as necessary and iinnuitable, and in his impulse
to look for times and places in which profoundly different understandings held sway,in
order to secure a better appreciation of our limits and possibilitics. And it is this impulse
that motivates the profoundly ethnographic exercise Foucault undcrtakes, in Tlie Use of
Pleasure in particular, in reconstructing imaginatively the deeply ditierent kind of ethical
project that was the ancient aesthetics of existence.
The aesthetics of existence recommended to Athenian citizens differed from the later
hermeneutics of desire, according to Foucault, across the range of doinains from dietetics,
through domestic relations, erotic relations with youths and questions of abstinence and
truth.Importandy,the advent ofChristianity was a point in a gradual and complex recon-
figuration, and not a dramatic discontinuity.The gradual change in the core ethical sub-
stance (ontology) from pleasures to desires was a change from a dyuiwiic concern with
what are the effects of pleasurable activities and how these respond to considerations of
timeliness,frequency, need and the relative status of participants, to a inorphological knowl-
edge ofpermitted and prohibited acts.The aesthetics of existence required knowledge in
the form of a savoir-faire and the effortful use of pleasures aimed at achieving freedom,
conceived not as absence ofconstraint but as self-rule. It involved an exercise rather than an
absence of power, because just as a ruler who was not in control of his own pleasures
would be unable to care for those in his power,and was therefore the epitome of a tyrant,
so a man who was not in command of himself in the exercise of his pleasures would
become a slave to them instead.
Nothing brings out the distinctiveness of an aesthetics of existence, and its distance
from an ethics of sexuality, more clearly than Foucaults account ofjust why and in what
ways same-sex relations were problematized in the ancient system. Erotic relations between
adult men and youths (those just on the cusp of adult status) were not, as had sometimes
been claimed,regarded in a relaxed way or as not a moral matter. Ear from being morally
neutral or 'tolerated', they were highly problematized, regarded by some as the most
elevated and beautiful relationships ofali, by others as the corruption of youth.The reason
they were thus debated, fiirthermore, was not a matter of sexuality: same-sex relations
were not,as such, either admired or condemned.The fact of the relations being same-sex
was not in itself ethically significant. What was significant was not what you desired, but
whether you could exercise self-comtnand in your enjoyment of whatever it was that you
desired.So,for example,in discussion ofthe terms on which a man might enjoy his slaves
sexually, the fact of whether they were men or women was not significant.There,as in a
man's relations with his wife and in his government of his household, what virtue was
generally argued to consist in was moderation in the exercise of ones own freedom
in relation to those over whom one had power.Whàt was different about relations between a
citizen and a youth, however, was that here right conduct consisted in accomuiodating the
freedom ofthe other, because,unlike a wife or a slave, he was himself destined to be a citizen.
As such, he must learn to be free and to exercise his freedom in relation to those over
Michel Foucault 181
whom he had povvcr. I le niust bc fittcd to take his place in the assembly with his fellow
drizens. Ethical conccrn about pcdcrastic friendships was about whether they aided or
inhibited the prcparation of a youth to assume these responsibiliries.Were they, as main-
tained by those who ideali/ed such relations, the crowning stage of his educarion, or did
they risk fixing him in immaturity,as was claimed by those who disapprovedPAnd this was
a matter of whether,in the relation, the youth learned to be master ofhis pleasures,rather
than becoming the object of soineone else s. Any citizen who was so much not his own
master that he was the slavc to anotliers wishes was unfit to act as a dtizen,and in a direct
democracy such as Athcns, sucli a mau was a danger to the integrity and the safety ofthe
state.What was inorally ha/ardous about such relations was nothing to do with sexuality,
therefore, in the modem scnsc. It w-as to do with the flindamentally poUdcai matter of
who is fit to exercise frecdom.
Now,obviously I oucault had a number of reasons for finding this whole subject fas-
cinating, and the care with wihch he explicates the specificities ofandentAthenian eUte
male erotics was motivated partly by his interest in the experimental possibilities of
male—male erotic relations in his own time. But Foucaulfs principal daim for his
ethnography of ancient Círcece, and the contribution he claimed it could make to the
thought of his time, was of a different order: it had something important to teach us
about how we should think about freedom. Of course, he insisted repeatedly and as
forcefully as he could, ancient Círeece could in no sense be a model for a modem society.
The reasons for this are as numerous as they are obvious. But, as anthropologists ought
especially to be aware, the ethnography of other times and places may inform and enrich
our thinking on a wide range of grounds and bases other than that.The principal point
Foucault makes is rather a focused one. The ancient Greeks had asked themselves the
question of what it was to bc free, and what you need to do in order to be able to be free,
not as a matter of how one might remove power from human relations, or how one
might remove oneself from relations of power, neither ofwhich he thought possible,but
as a matter instead of how to cxcrcisc power. He did not claim that the ancient Greeks
provided a usable answer to that question, or indeed that there ever could be a definitive
answer. His claim was simply that we had something to learn from the very possibüity of
asking that question.
The genealogy of cthics developed in Foucault s later works has been formative for the
developing anthropology of ethics and morality in a number ofways,some more obvious
than others. His broad conceptual framework was an important starting point for some
early prospectuses for the enterprise of an anthropology of ethics (e.g. Faubion 2001a;
2011; Laidlaw 1995; 2002; 2014), and the general theme of how subjects are constítuted
in an interplay ofrelationships ofself to self'and Telationships ofselfto others',including,
in his last two series of Collège de France lectures,in practices oftruth-telling (parrêsia) in
relation to procedures of government (2010; 2011), together with his analytic for the
analysis of projects of self-fashioning: ali these rich intellectual resources have informed
anthropological analyses of ethical life, in contexts as diverse as reügious traditions and
piety movements (Asad 1993; Laidlaw 1995; Faubion 2001b; Mahmood 2004; Robbins
2004; Hirschkind 2006; Gook 2010), everyday rural life in the face ofstate developmen-
talism (Pandian 2009) or human rights NGOs(Englund 2006),parenthood (Paxson 2004;
Clarke 2009; Kuan 2015), artistic vocations (Faubion 2014) and activism (Dave 2012;
Heywood 2015a; 2015b; Lazar 2017), as well as in reflections on the ethics ofthe anthro
pological enterprise itself(Faubion 2009; Laidlaw 2014:Ch.6).
182 James Laídiaw
The apparent divergence between two different ways in which Foucault s ideas have
been adopted and adapted by anthropologists owes more to tlic iiitcrcsts the latter have
had in reading him,and to the other intellectual traditions thcy have been engaging with
as they did so, than to any profound discontinuity in Foucaults own thought, that pro-
ceeded in general by incrementai steps, taking up new problenis and questions as they
came into view,correcting what he thought were over-emphases and blind-spots in earHer
studies, and broadening the historical and cultural range of bis enquiries, to address, ever
more searchingly, ever more fundamental questions.
Biblíography
Foucault'5 principal books

[1961] Folie et déraison: histoire de Ia folie à Tâge classique.(Translaccd first as Maduess and Civili-
zation, 1967;and then History ofMaàness,2006.)
1963. Naissatue de Ia clinique: une archéologie du regard medicai.(77/e Birth of the Clinic 1973.)
1966. Les mots et les choses: une archéologie des sãemes huntaines.{The Order oflliings 1970.)
1969. L'archéologie du savoir.(The Archaeology of Knowledge 1972.)
1975. Surveilleretpunir: naissance de Ia prison.(Discipline and Punish 1977.)
1976. Lm volonté de savoir: histoire de Ia sexualité, I. (The History of Sexuality. Vol t. An Ititroduction,
1978.)
1984. L'usage des plaisirs: histoire de Ia sexualité, II.(The Use ofPleasure: l he Histor)' of Sexuality, Vol. 2,
1985.)
1984. Le souci de soi: histoire de Ia sexualité, III.(The Care of the Self: History of.Sexuality, Vol. 3,1986.)
Essay coilections
The best English-language coilections are the three volumes of Essential Works:
1997. Essetitial Works ofMichel Foucault, Vol 1: Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth, odited by Paul Rabinow.
1998. Essential Works of Michel Foucault, Vol 2: Aesthetics, Method, Hpisteinology, edited by James D.
Faubion.
2000. Essential Works ofMichel Foucault, Vol 3: Power,edited by Paul Rabinow.
Posthumousiy published
The most important posthumously published works are transcripts of Foucault's lectures
at the CoUège de France.The most significant of these are:
Society Must be Defended:Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-1976 (2003).
The Birth ofBiopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979(2008).
The Hermeneutics ofthe Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1981-1982 (2005).
The Government ofSelfand Others: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1982-1983 (2010).
The Government ofSelfand Others II.The Courage ofTruth. Lectures at the CJollè(>e de Frattce, 1983-1984.
(2011).
Other references
Asad, Talai 1993. Genealogies of Religion: Discipline atui Reason of Power in Christianity and Islam.
Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.
Michel Foucault 183
Bayly, Chriscophcr A. 1996. I-nipirc iind Itifornuuion: Intelliêtice Gathering and Social Commnnication.
Cambridgc: C'anibridgo Univcrsity Press.
Bourg,Julien 2007. l-ront Revolution lo EtUks: May 1968 and ConteinpomrY FreitchTlíought.Montreú:
McGill-Qiiccns Universiry Pross.
Clarke, Morgan 2009. I.<laiií atui tlic AVir Kitiship: Reproductive Technology and íhe Sharíah in Lebanon.
Oxford: Berghahn.
Cüfford.James and Cíoorgc 1-. Marcus (eds.) 1986. IVriting Cuitnre.The Poetics and Politics ofEthnog-
raphy. Berkelcy. C^.A: Universiry oí"C'alifornia Press.
Cohn, Bernard S. 1996. Ckdoíiialiíin and its Fonns of Knowiedge: Tlie British in índia. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Universiry Press.
Cook.Joanna 2010..Mcditaiion in .Modem Bnddliisin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dave, Naisargi N. 2012. Qneer.^ctivisin in índia:A Story in the Anthropology ofEtbics.DuThzm.NC:
Duke Universiry Press.
Englund,Harri 2006. Prisoners ofI-reedoin:Hinnan Rights and theAJrican Poor.Berkeley.CAiUniversity
of Califórnia Press.
Eribon, Didier 1991. Michel 1'oncanU. Cambridge, MA:Harvaid University Press.
Faubion.James D. 2001a. Ibward an anrhropolog>' of ethics: Foucault and the pedagogies of auto-
poiesis. Representations 74: 8.V104.
2001b.'lhe Shadowí and Lightí oflVaco:.Miliennialism Tèí/ny.Princeton,NJ:Princeton University
Press.
2009.1 he ethics offieidwc^rk as an ethics ofconnectivity,Or the good anthropologist (isn't
what she used to be). In Janies D. Faubion and George E. Marcus (eds.), Fieldmrk is Not What lí
Used to Be. Ithaca, NY: C-ornell Universit\' Press.
2011. An AntUropoiogy ofiíthics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2014. Consranrive Cavafy: A parrhesiast for the cynic of the fiiture. In James D. Faubion
(ed.), Foncanít Now: Cnrrenr Perspectives in Foucault Studies. Cambridge:Polity Press.
Faubion,James D. and George F.. Marcus (eds.) 2009. Fieldwork is Not What It Used to Be.Ithaca, NY:
Cornell Universiry Press.
Foucault, Michel.2()()6 119611. lhe Flistory ofMadness,translated by Jean Khalfa.London:Routledge.
Halperin, David M.,john J.Winkler and Froma 1. Zeitlin (eds.) 1990. Before Sexuality:The Construc-
tion ofErotic E.xpericnce in the Ancient Greek IVorld. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
Heywood,Paolo 2015a. Freedom in the code:The anthropology of(double) morality.y4Mf/«ropo/í^-
icalTíteory 15: 200—217.
2015b. Agreeing to disagree: LGBTQ activism and tlie Church in Italy. HMJiJourtial of
Ethnographic'Iheory 5: 59—78.
Hirschkind, Charles 2006. Fhe Ethical Soundscape: Cassette Sennons and Islantic Counterpnblics.
NewYork, NY: Columbia University Press.
Hoy,David Couzens (ed.) 1986. Foucault:A Crú/ni/Re<ider. Oxford: Blackwell.
Inda, Jonathan Xavier (ed.) 2005. Anthropologies of Modemity: Foucault, Gouemnientality and Ufe
Politics. Oxford: Blackvvell.
Kuan,Teresa 2015. Lovc's Vncertainty.lhe Politics and Ethics ofChild Rearing in Contemporary China.
Berkeley, CA: University of Califórnia Press.
Laidlavv,James 1995. Riches and Renunciation: Religion, Economy, and Society atnong thejains. Oxford;
Clarendon Press.
2002. For an anrhropolog>' of ethics and freedom.Jeurfw/ ofthe RoyalAnthropological Institute
8:311-332.
2014. 7he Subject oflîrtue: Ati Anthropology of Ethics and Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lazar, Sian 2017. lhe Social Life of Politics: Ethics, Kinship and Union Activism ín Paio Alto,
CA:Stanford University Press.
Macey,David 1993. lhe Lives of.Michel Foiuvm/í. London: Hutchinson.
184 James Laídiaw
Mahmood,Saba 2004. Politics of Pieíy: Tlie Islamic Reviva! and the I-ctninist Suhject. Princeton,
Princeton University Press.
Marcus, George E. 1998. Ethnography TlnougU Tliick and Tfiin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Miller,James 1993. The Passion ofMichel Foucault. Cambridge, MA: I Lirvard University Pres.
MitchelljTimothy 1988. Colonishig Egypt. Cambridge; Cambridge University^ Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich 1994 [1887]. On the Genealogy of Morality. C"ambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pandian,Anand 2009. Crooked Stalks: Cuitivating Virtue in Sonth índia, nnrham,NC:Diike University
Press.
Paras,Eric 2006. Foucault 2.0: Beyotid Powerand Knowledge. NewYork, NY: l he Other Press.
Paxson.HezÚierlOO^.Makifig Modem Mothers:Ethics and Faniily Planning in Urban Creece. Berkeley,
CA:University ofCalifórnia Press.
Rabinow, Paul 1995. French Modem: Nonns and Forms of the Social íinvironinent. Câmbridge, MA:
MIT Press.
2003.AnthroposTòday:Rejlections on Modem Equipinent. Princeton, N|: Princeton University
Press.
Robbins.joel 2004. Becotning Sinners: Christianity and MoraíTortnent in <i Papua New Gtiinea Society.
Berkeley, CA:University of Califórnia Press.
Stoler,Ann Laura 1995.Race and the Education o/Desire: Foucault's History ofSc.xuality and the Colonial
Order o/Things.Durham,NC:Duke University Press.
Thomas, Nicholas 1994. Colonialism's Culture: Anthropology, Travei, and Governincnt. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
J
Chapter I I
From 'the body' to 'embodiment',
wíth help from phenomenology
Maryon McDonald
Introductíon
In the late 1980s and carly 199()s, structuralism (see chapter 2) seemed to have come and
gone but an cnibarrassing part\- cclebrating ideas, interpretations, myth, symbolism and
other'represcntations' was still going on in the main anthropology lecture theatres in the
UK. New thcorics had already tricd to gct anthropoiogy's feet back on the ground -
whether through Marxisin (c.g. Bloch 1975; see chapter 3), for example, or the defini-
tional realities of 'seniantic anthropology' (e.g. Ardener 1982). In some ways, semantic
anthropology prefigured the very inuch more recent 'ontological turn'(see chapter 14)
but much of anthropolog>- simply ignored or condemned it at the time.Where Marxist
anthropologies asserted their own analytical realities - their o\vn language of context, we
might say — semantic anthropology sought to take seriously the realities of those that
anthropologists scudied. Such an ambition was held by other moves against structuralism
in this period, particularly those taking their inspiration from phenomenology.Although
ali these approaches were very difíerent from each other,they shared aspects suggestíve of
a sweeping scarcli for 'reiüitry talk' in this period - a period of anthropology that could
otherwise seem to be afloat on cosmic balloons ofconceptual structures.Antd-idealist and
anti-objectivist battles ensued,and it was out of this general post-structuralist pursuit that
the analytical language of'embodiment'came. Bodies were real.
This chapter points to some of the innovative aspects of'embodiment', an innovatíon
that became so popular that its pervasive, self-evident banality would later cause Bruno
Latour(2004:209;see also cliapter 13) to proclaim that'the opposite ofembodied is dead'.
From'the body* to embodiment

'The body' had long been a taken-for-granted object in much social analysis - and was
often assumed to be a universal, natural object best left to the biologist and medicai doc-
tors to deal with.A social science interest in the body was encouraged fiom the 1960s and
1970s onwards by several factors, amongst which the consumer culture oflate capitalism,
plus feminism (see chapter 12), Foucault's work (see chapter 10) and the growing'bio'
industry are among those most commonly cited (Lambert and McDonald 2009).'The
body'- along with the realm ofthe natural- was now problematized and,in keeping with
new modes of flexibility in work and production, objectifications of'the body' began to
favour a flexible, changing entity (Martin 1994). It is in this more general context of
body-consciousness that part of the appeal of embodiment can be situated.
186 Maryon McDonald
One of the best known introducrions to embodiment in social anthropology carne

through the work ofThomas Csordas, with his 1994 edited volume entitled Embodiment
JBxperieMce becoming a landmark work in this respect.We will turn to this in a moment.
Csordas was not the first to draw our attenrion to the analytical importance of the corpo-
real. Mauss (1979[1935]) and then, much later on,Bourdieu (1977), were amongst those
who preceded him (see chapter 2).'Embodiment' is generaUy attributed to the influence
in the social sciences ofphenomenology.The philosophers usually drawn on have included
Husserl, Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger. Several anthropologists took up the insights of
phenomenology and combined them with earlier insights concerning the body that they
found in the work of Mareei Mauss. Mauss had written about'techniques of the body'by
which he meant'the ways in which from society to society men (sic] know how to use
their bodies'(1979:97).These'techniques'involve the ways in which we walk,run,dance,
swim,ride a bicycle and more.AH these techniques were 'social' for Mauss in that they are
learnt and become habitual or customary, together forming what he termed a habitns.
Bodies are socialized,in his ter ms,into a habittds.
A well-known social theorist who later took up Mauss's ideas — including the notion
of habitus — was Bourdieu (1977;see also chapter 2). Habitns for Bourdieu was'a system of
lasting, transposable dispositions which, integraring past experiences, functions at every
moment as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations and actions'(1990: 70). He talked of
'socialization',which was the inculcation ofdispositions and generativo schemes.Bourdieu,
like others at that time, was trying to move beyond the apparent idealism and objecrivist
abstractions ofstructuralism. Using phenomenology to put sentient bodies back into the
picture felt like one important way of doing this. In the work of Bourdieu, bodies devel-
oped'automatisms' through 'socialization' and social order was thus naturalized.You talk,
eat,sit, write in particular ways at particular times, without necessarily thinking too much
about it: itjust starts to feel natural.Bourdieu refined Mauss's notion of habitus through his
work,and Csordas suggests how he also refined Merleau-Ponty: whereas the latter stressed
'beingtoward-the-world',Bourdieu injected a'reciprocity of body-world'(Csordas 2011:
138). However, even those initially keen on the idea of habitus felt it was still without
historicity (Toren 2012:71-72).Instead,once acquired, habitus seemed to imply a fixity of
dispositions,a fixity ofcustom or tradition. Critics ofBourdieu's work have suggested that
a seeming fixity of the habitus was perhaps due to a romanticism in Bourdieu's construc-
tion ofthe world ofthe Kabyle where he did his first fieldwork (Roodenburg 2004).
Csordas's own work was partly in the field of ritual - part of that exotic triad of myth,
ritual and symbolism that structuralism had made its own.Such a focus could easily appear
to leave empirical realities - whether framed as the political, economic or as the concern
of the natural sciences - to others. However,Csordas was not content with this situation.
He was keen to re-inject what he saw as missing. For him, this was the body but he did
not introduce it as a'brute fact of nature'(1994:1). He quite explicitly wanted the body
to be seen not as object but as agent - as'an experiencing agent'(p. 2). Structuralism, he
felt, had merely encouraged a study ofculture from the neck up'(p. 2).The mind/body
dichotomy was one central duality that embodiment wanted to go beyond. It was no help
that,in the face ofaccusations ofidealism, Lévi-Strauss's cosmic objectivity had ultimately
come to rest in some universal 'human brain'. An embodiment approach moved away
from the idealism of structuralism, its concern with ideas, and away from the objectivism
that had led us to a universal human brain. Csordas's body was not a universal, naturalized
or essentiahzed body of this kind: instead, it was a body that was always 'located'.
From 'the body' to 'embodiment' 187
Perceptions are always enibodied. grounded in a particular embodied standpoint. This

approach carricd caveats for otlicr anthropologies of the time, including interprerivism
(see chapter 8): it nicant acccpting always the 'interpretive consequences' of partiaiity,
imperfect coninuinication or what Csordas termed the 'relatedness' of our being (p. 2).
There was — to cite a paraphrase froni elsewhere — no unlocated interpretarion, no'god's
eye view'(e.g. I laraway 1991).
Anthropological work has long been citcd that suggests that 'the body' as a distdnct
entity was introduccd in sonie parts of the world by Christianity, medicine and colonial-
ism(see,for example. I eenhardt (1979(1947])on the Canaques of New Caledonia,cited
in Csordas 1994:6—8). l he objectification of'the body'vvith which we are now so familiar
has been shaped and encouraged by Christianity, by consumerism and by the biological
and medicai sciences. Ainongst the consequences ofthis objectification has been a further
encouragement to individuation, and to dualities that have posed analytical hurdles for
anthropology - dualities that C.sordas lists as 'culture and biology, the mental and the
material, culture and practical reason, gender and sex'(p. 7).These are dualities that slide
into a distinction of mind/subject/culture on the one hand and body/object/biology on
the other, with the fornier seeniing to be derivative or mere'representarion'.'Embodiment'
seemed to be a language and approach that offered a means ofgetting outside this frame-
work, potentially botii avoithng and coUapsing the dualities involved For Csordas and
others,'embodiment' meant changing gear analytically to take up phenomenological
notions of being-in tiie-world as prior. Paying attention to the priority of being in the
world could turn embodiment into historically informed engagement with the world of
which bodies are part. In this approach, dualities such as subject and object or meaning
and the material world (evoking mind/body) can be collapsed.They are collapsed in the
world of analysis - but may take on an ethnographic reality instead, as the experiential
realities of those whom we study.
For Csordas,'embodiment' is a 'paradigm' and a 'methodological perspective' rather
than a route to any distinct theory (2011). Within this framework, we must redirect our
ethnographic attention and stop any loose talk ofthe body'as ifit were a given object that
we can take for granted. Critiques of biology at this time - critiques that we might see as
having come mainly from the two 'fs', Foucault and feminism - together with smdies of
illness, pain and his tíwn work on healing, gave Csordas the confidence to see biology as
no longer a 'nionolithic objectivity' (p. 3). Instead, 'the body' is transformed in this
approach, and we turn to a prior 'embodiment' that the 'anthropology of the body' had
previously taken for granted. It can only be through embodiment that'the body'can be
objectified in the first placo. It is bodies that make objectifications possible. If we are to
accept a methodological framework ofembodiment,then the body is not invoked analyt
ically as a given empirical thing or interesting theme but as 'the existential ground of
culture and self(1990;2011:4).Acknowledging his debt to Merleau-Ponty (1962),Csordas
emphatically moves bodies in this way from being objects to being'the ground ofpercep-
tual processes that ciid in objectification'(2011: 7) It is this process of objectification that
has involved the ontologization of those same analytically problematic dualities such as
mind/body or culture/biology (or culture/nature),gender/sex,andso on (1990;2011:7).
'Embodiment' approaches struggled to make clear that such dualities become matters of
ethnographic interest, distinctions that we watch being made,rather than being a taken-
for-granted part ofany analytical framework imposed by the anthropologist.Ethnograph-
ically, we can note where and when they both structure and are confirmed by experience.
188 Maryon McDonald
This is an important point that Csordas's work, and that of otlicrs who then took up
embodiment,have made in various ways.Versions of a conccptual/material or mind/body
dichotomy that structuralism had appeared to encourage,if only through the debates that
it generated, had to be overcome. Work by the philosopher and medicai doctor Drew
Leder, entided TlieAbsent Body (1990), offered a useflil critique of mind/body as an ana-
lyücal framework,and Csordas made expHcit use of Leder s work. Leder s book makes the
point that, in everyday Hfe, the body seems to disappear from awareness. In instances of
disease or dysfiinction, however, there is an unwanted appearance of the body, a kind of
'dys-appearance'and alienation.This can only arise, Csordas argues (1994: 7), through the
embodied nature of mind.The unwanted consciousness of the body when ill encourages
attention to'the body'as an objective reahty- and a correlative sense of the immateriality
of mind and thought.Such points underline that the mind/body duality is an experiential
reahty, not a natural given. Csordas (p.8) points out that in different contexts, either mind
or body can appear to be objects - the mind objectified in cognitive science or the body
in biological science,for example - but anthropology can no longer see the body as'bio-
logical raw material' on which either 'the mind' or culture operates. Making the body a
'precultural substrate'in that way would be simply to reproduce those same dualities, with
mind as subject and body as object.Putting this another way, we can note once again that
what advocates of'embodiment'seemed to want to do here was not only to go beyond
the objectívism ofstructuraHsm but also to encourage us to treat ethnographically dualities
that anthropology might otherwise have been tempted at this time to take for granted.
The chapters gathered in Csordas's edited volume Embodiniciir and Experience (1994)
exemplify some of his aims. For example,Setha Low's chapter entitled 'Hmbodied meta-
phors: Nerves as Uved experience'(1994) makes it clear that we are trying to pay attention
to the embodied reaHties of those studied. She discusses the condition of newios in Costa
Rica,Guatemala and elsewhere.In situations of poverty, migration and discrimination,for
example,the illness oftieruios occurs- with sufferers shaking,feeling dizzy, weak and feehng
unable to sleep.Setha Low stresses that talking of newios or nerves is not a metaphor about
the body,or a metaphor imposed on the body. It is real, it is embodied,it is a condition in
which what we might want to see as the 'social' emerges in bodily experience.We note
here that talk of'embodiment'does not preclude other analytical languages that in some
way describe the'social context'in which bodies are situated. If bodies are 'located',it will
often require an analytical language from the ethnographer to situate or'locate'them,and
embodiment does not dictate what that language should be.We might introduce a language
ofcontext such as 'exploitation' or'ahenation',for instance — but, at the same time, there
is an ever-present danger hovering here,and in several other chapters of the same volume,
of rendering embodiment secondary to this 'context'. Newios still risks appearing to be a
condition that might ali too easily be dismissed as somehow a metaphor for, or as 'repre-
senting', something else that is more real. The way this matter of context is presented is
important,and has gradually been refined in anthropology since the 199()s.What Csordas's
1994 volume seems to be trying to do is to move us towards grasping that it is, in priority,
people's own context that they embody, and Low's chapter gives some material that is
successful in that respect, with some sufferers speaking of their newios in a context of
disruptions in their family relationships,for instance (pp. 147-148). rhere are nevertheless
lingering tensions throughout the volume between 'the body' and embodiment, and
between 'embodiment' and how to talk about what it is that is being embodied such
that embodiment is still taken seriously. And there are frequent lapses into divisions of
From 'the body' to 'embodíment' 189
'the body' and its 'cultural construction'. Social cr cultural constructíciiism were among
the other products ot" phcnoincnologic;il iníluence that had taken hold at this time, and
they haunt niany of the pionccring'enibodiment' approaches. Evoking the very duaÜries
that embodinicnt wantcd to go bcyond, this constructionism assumed an object (e.g. the
body) that is thcn culturally or soci.üly constructed (see chapter 13).
Embodíments
There have bccn niany cnlightcning uptakcs and refinements of the'embodíment' para-
digm that Csordas,.ibovc ali othcrs, was successful in launching. One of the subsequent
refinements of both Bourdicu and C.sordas is found in the work ofChristinaToren.Advo-
cates of'enibodiment' have sometimes uscd notions of'intenrionality*and'intersubjectivity'
(ideas important in the work of phenomenologists). Csordas cites these ideas in his early
work and, within the sanie decade, Ibren (1999) subsequendy gave them prominence.
Toren's 1999 book shows in stnne detail how hierarchical relarions are progressively
embodied in biji from a young age. I his ethnography was an unusual work for its time in
that it very clearly did not take anything called 'social structure'or'structure'as ready-made.
She injected historicit>', and 'child development' took on a new ethnographic life.Toren
draws on phenomenolog\', liourdieu and enibodiment. Through bodies as 'embodied
minds'(or 'enminded bodies'), she rethinks her own earlier training in psychology and,
above ali, she insists on the historicir>' of enibodiment,on bodies as process.
'Intentionality'had been important for Merleau-Ponty,andToren cites itfirequendy.For
those who advocated enibodiment theory,intentionality came to mean that ali conscious-
ness is consciousness of something and that the things that we are conscious ofand might
take for grantcd are brought into being as a function ofour Hved experience in the world.
There are no given mind/body or subject/object distincrions here and phenomenology is
seen to have inverted Descartes in some respects.We are, in priority, embodied: we are in
and of the world and it is only through this that we can think and reflect,and know who
we are.The world is fundamentiilly part ofthe constitution of what it means to be human,
and inherent to the constitution of any 'self. Being in the world necessarily has a histo-
ricity and we enibody the spatiotemporal dimensions ofthe world in which we live.Toren
stresses that it is not just a question of being in time but of embodying the time that we
have lived (p. 13). Subjectivity presupposes intersubjectivity - the relations that produce a
self. These two ideas, of intentionality and intersubjectivity, are most explicitly brought
together in anthropology by Ibren who cites Merleau-Ponty to clarify:'! am installed on
a pyramid of time which has been me'(Merleau-Ponty 1964:14; citedToren 1999:13).
From within this phenonienologicaJ framework,Toren summarizes the production of a
body-self, a relational enibodiment,in the foUowing terms:
[Y]ou were born into a set of relations with others and the ideas heldby those others
and the practices with which they are associated have informed, and continue to
inform, the process of your becoming
(p.7-8)
Toren pushed hard to build in historicity and to take on board what a collapse of dualities
such as biology and culture might mean. It is not just that biology is itself culturally pro-
duced as a discourse. Rather, if we are to use that language at ali, then she felt we were
190 Maryon McDonald
culturally biological and biologically cultural. Such insights pointed us firnily in the direc-
tion ofthinking that,ifwe are to talk ofembodiment,then we are talking of bodies (in the
plural) and bodies that are constituted and reconstituted over time (2012).Another anthro-
pologist who had long been working in a similar direcrion is Tini Ingold (e.g. 1998,2000,
2004).Ingold,however,used phenomenology and embodiment in a slighdy difFerent way-
and introduced 'enskilment' and 'dwelling'(Heidegger 2001 (1971 j)). What might other-
wise have been loosely talked ofas cultural variation, and linked to language, becomes for
Ingold a matter ofa variation in embodied skills. He was,like others, partly arguing against
structuralism and other contemporary language-dominated models of'culture'- but also
against their associated models of'knowledge transmission'. Skills, he argued, become
'incorporated into the modus operandi ofthe developing human organism through training
and experience in the performance of particular tasks'(2000: 5). l he tasks that people in
any situation get involved in depends on their modes of'dwelling'— tiiat might,for example,
be their modes oftraveUing,ofrecreational activity,or their means ofsubsistence or earning
a living and so on (Ingold 2000: Ch 3;2004;Ingold and Kurttila 2001). Enskilment is not
a simple matter of being on the receiving end of the 'transmission' of knowledge but it is
like being an apprentice who has progressively to fine-tune their perception.This is done
through'observation and imitation', which means paying active attention to others'orien-
tation to their environment (observation) and 'aligning that attention to the movement of
one's own practical orientation towards the environment'(Ingold 2000: 37).The 'appren
tice',the newborn,the novice- or perhaps the anthropologist in the field - thus learns'to
feel this, taste that, or watch out for the other thing'(p. 22).
Since the late 1990s, work has proHferated that has developed embodiment approaches
in this way (one example would be Gieser 2008) — but also in other ways, too. This is
especially the case in medicai anthropology, but also in anthropological studies that have
focused on specific topics such as a comparative focus on persons (e.g. Lambek and Stratliem
1998;Strathern and Stewart 2011),and there are large compendia displaying a great vari-
ety of embodied wares,from neolibendism to taste (e.g. Mascia-Lees 2011). Refmements
have certainly taken place but not ali anthropologists have found 'embodiment' either
useful or appropriate.
Movíng on
One critic ofembodiment is Aparecida Vilaça, who has worked in the Amazon. Her mentor
wasViveiros de Castro (see chapter 14).Vilaça takes embodiment to task from the point of
view of her Amazonian ethnographic material (2009). Embodiment, she says, looks to
bodies as the seat ofperception and as the substrate ofintersubjective relations. Ofcourse,
we can follow this up by saying, well, differences between bodies would imply differences
in perception, constituting objects in a particular way. But generally,she feels, there seems
- in Csordas particularly - to be an assumption of the individual and of the human as
starting points.
In Amazônia, however, the starting point would have to be difFerent: it would have to
be an extended notion of the human,including various types of animal. The human is a
position, a temporary outcome of a complex play of perspectives. This is, as Viveiros de
Castro (1998) pointed out, a perspectivist world of multinaturalism as opposed to multi-
culturaÜsm (see chapter 14 for a more detailed account of this general argument). Every
being hzs jam,the capacity to jamu - to change affects and adopt other habits - enabling
From 'the body' to'embodiment' 191
the person to bc sccii as similar by other types of beings. Beings have a metamorphic
capacity, a capacity to transform. a 'soul'- and prophyiactic measures are taken to control
the capacity for transformation and fix the 'soul': for example, tattooing to keep a person
distinct from animais.Whercas,Vilaça says,embodiment often assumes subjects constituted
in advance, anterior to the relations that produce them. In Amazônia,different relational
contexts produce not only distinct objectifications of phenomena but different bodily
constitutions of the subjcct. l he resiilt of a relational context in Amazônia may therefore
be an Indian or a j.iguar or a tapir (2005).This is a worid of unstable bodies and there is
nostable substrate. Vilaça (2009) therefore rejects'embodiment'as inappropriate:it carries
specific assumptions from ditferent and broadly 'Western' contexts that would traduce
Amazonian (amongst other) modes of being.
Through Amazonian ethnography,some ofthe interesting but problemaric assumptions
that'embodiment' carried were highlighted. In common vvith others,Vilaça looked for
help to reflections by I.atour (2004) on the body. Latour's work extends the human in a
different way (for an introduction to I atour's work more generally,see chapter 13).Other-
wise,he evokes Ibren and Ingold in some respects,stressing historidty,change and leaming-
but he writes of a process of'learning to be affected'.We can summarize Latour's approach
by saying that he speaks not of embotiiment or enskilment but of bodies that are acquired
(see McDonald 2014). I le uses the example of the odour kit used in the training of
'a nose' in the perfume industry in France. In this training process, the kit becomes co-
extensive with bodies; bodies are dynamic trajectories,and the kit produces a transforma
tion in the body of the person and in the universe of which they are a part, one element
articulating another, one alTecting the other. It is not a question, Latour stresses, of an
anterior subject (is my nose accurate?) representing an object (is it an accurate representa-
tion of odours already existing in world?). It is instead a question of'articulation* - or
indeed a process of mutual articulation'(McDonald 2014).The odour kit has itselfalready
been set up through the publications, conferences, documentation,training,conventdonal
materiais and practices of the chemists and engineers who made it. In using this kit, the
trainees in the perfume industry learn to be affected by ever more subde distinctions.They
move from simple, sharp contrasts to tine distinctions.The'dumb nose' that initially can
only smell a nice/nasty ditícrence becomes a nose in a world of ever finer distinctions.
Pupils learn to be aíTected by chemicals that previously might have'bombarded them to
no avail'.'Body parts' are acquired at the same time as'world counterparts' are being reg-
istered in a new way (I.atour 2004). It is not a question of a more and more accurate
'representation' of odours that are really ;ilready there in the world - but rather a process
of mutual articulation. l he more sensitive the bodies the trainees acquire, the more the
world affords them - in this instance, the subtler the fragrances they smell.
In this framework then, bodies are readily changeable and are acquired through an
environing world that is itself constituted and reconstituted in the process.
Conclusíon
A focus on embodied experienti;il realities became an anthropology that posed from its
early days as another critique ofrepresentation'(Csordas 1994:9;see chapters 13 and 14).
AH too often in the humanities, the body was previously interpreted as a'text', a'sign'or
as the passive bearer of various political and social meanings,including gender or ethnicity,
for example. Structuralist (see chapter 2) and interpretative (see chapter 8) theories
192 Maryon McDonald
encouraged this.The body was ofinterest in its symbolism, or thc attitudes towards it and
discourses about it.There was always an'k'- the body. The work of Bourdieu (see chapter 4)
and then the increasingly dynamic correctives of'embodiment' theor>' brought a new
attention to the performing and understanding body, the active body, the lived body.
GraduaUy,instead of any fixed, habitual disposirions, and instead of'the body', there now
emerged a world ofbodies that are consrituted and reconstituted through an inherence in
their environing world — and then bodies acquired through an environing world itself
consrituted and reconstituted in the process.
More than any other anthropologist,Csordas brought'embodinient'to anthropological
attention.Toren injected historicity and relationality, and rethought aspects of psychology.
Ingold introduced enskilment and dwelling and rethought oldcr ideas of learning. Vilaça
and Latour, each in their own way, looked beyond a stable substrato and beyond the
human.This story is necessarily brief,simplified and highly selectivc, suggesting just a few
of the approaches that 'embodiment' introduced. Since the 1990s, embodiment and its
successors have been progressively 'mainstreamed' in social anthropology and become
pervasive enough to be unspoken.An interest in embodiment has also encouraged a great
deal of new and criticai ethnographic work in related fields such as 'affect' and the senses
(see, for just a few such examples amongst many: Clough and Halley 2007; Pink 2009;
Howes 2011; Navaro-Yashin 2012). We have come a long way now from that natural
object, the body,that was left to medicine and the natural sciences. Anthropologists have
been able to engage in dialogue with the natural sciences, and to rethink both 'the body'
and its 'environment' through ideas such as 'local biologies', and they have pointed to
epigenerics and microbiomes as interesting ways of collapsing old ideas of the body/
environment distincrions (see e.g. Lock and Nguyen 2010; Lock 2011). In an importam
sense, bodies are environments - and they embody their environments (see e.g. Hamdy
[2011]forpoignant ethnographic illustrarion). Embodiment may mean that you are what
you eat or how you dwell, or the person your relatives and environments make you,and
that you make,too.There is no universal'human body'on which relational embodiments
depend.That'human body'is an objecrification common in arenas such as medicine or
fine art- and in the training involved in either of thcse fields, particular circumstances are
embodied,and particular bodies have to be acquired,and then an objectified'body'can be
reproduced on canvas or notebook.
References
Ardener,E. 1982.Social anthropology,language and reaiicy. In D.Parkin (ed.), SematitkAnthropology.
LondoniAcademic Press.
Bloch.M.(ed.) \915. Marxist Analyses and Social Anthropology. London: Routledge.
Bourcüeu,P. 1977. Outlme ofa Theory ofPractice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1*990. The Logic ofPractice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Clough P.T andj Halley (eds.) 2007. The Affectiue Tnrn: Theorizing the Social. Durham, NC:Duke
University Press. ^ ,
Csordas,T 1990 Embodiment as a paradigm for anthropology. Ethos 18(1):.->-47.
- '(ed) 1994 Embodiment and Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
— 2011 Cultural Phenomenology Embodiment: Agency, Sexual I7ifference, and Illness. In
EE. Mascia-Lees {ed.),A Companion to the Anthropology of the Body and Embodiment, pp.137-156.
Oxford-.Wiley-Blackwell.
Gieser,T. 2008.Embodiment,emotion and empâzhy. Anthropologicaniieory 8(3): 299-318.
From 'the body' to'embodiment' 193
Hamdy, S. 2011. Whcn thc st.uo and your kidneys fail: Polirical edologies in an Egypdan dialysis
unit.zliMenVí/// rjlinoloi;i.<í 35(4): 553—569.
Haraway,D. 1991. Simitins, CJybor\;s, and 11 ón/e»;77/t' Reinvention o/" NewYork,NY:Routledge.
Heidegger, M. 2001 11971 ]. Building dwclling thinking. In Poetr}', Lait£U(ê,Thou£ltt,pp. 143-159.
NewYork, NY: Marpcr IVronnial Modem Classics.
Howes,D.2011.1 he sensos. Polysensorialirv-. In P.E. Mascia-Lees (ed.),/4 Companion to theAntliro-
pology ojthc Body and lànbodimcnt, pp. 451-460. Oxford:Wiley-Black\vell.
Ingold.T. 1998. l-roin ct>nipleinentary to obviation: On dissolving the boundaries between social
and biological anthropoltíg\-. arehaeoIog\- and psychology. ZeitschriftJUr Ethnologie 123:21-52.
2000. l he Perception ot thc lãwironntcnt: Essays on Lirelihood, Dioelling atid SkilL Lonáon and
NewYork. NY: Routledge.
2004. C-uitnre tni the ground: l he worid perceived through the feet.Jotirnal of Material
Cultiire 9 (3): 315-34*».
Ingold.T. and 1. Kurttiii.i 2001. Pereeiving the environment in Finish Lapland. In P. Macnaghten
and J. Urry (eds.). Bodics o/ Wnurc, pp. 183-196. London: Sage.
Lambek, M.and A. Strathern (eds.) 1998. Bodies and Persons. Cotnparative Perspectivesfiom África and
Melanesia. Canibridge: Clainbridge Universirs' Press.
Lambert, H.and M..McDonald 2009. Intrtíduction. In Lambert.H.and McDonald,M.(eds.). Social
Bodies, pp. 1—16. C^xtbrd .ind NewYork. NY:Berghahn.
Latour, B. 2004. I low to talk .ibout the bodv? The normarive dimension of science studies. Body &
Soríety \0: 205-229.
Leder,D. 1990. Tlic Absent Body. Cliicago. IL: University of Chicago Press.
Leenhardt, M.1979 (1947]. /)i> Kanw:Person and Myth in the Melanesian World,translated by B.Miller
Gulaci. Chicago, II.: University of Cliicago Press.
Lock,M.2011. Genoinics. l anbodying nioleciilar genomics.In F.E. Mascia-Lees (ed.),y4 Companion
to the Anthropology of thc Body and Embodiment. OxfordrWiley-Blackwell.
Lock, M.and V.-K. Ngnyeti (eds.) 2010. An Anthropology of Bioniedicine. OxfordrWiley-Blackwell.
Low,S. 1994. Embodied Metaphors: Nerves as Lived Experience. InT.J. Csordas (ed.) Embodiment
and Experience. Canibridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martín,E. 1994. Elc.xibic Bodies. liacking Immnnity inAmerican Cidturefrom the Days ofPolio to the Age
o/AIDS. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Mascia-Lees, F.E. (ed.) 201 1. /I Companion to the Anthropology ofthe Body and Embodiment. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackweli.
Maus, M. Mauss, Mareei 1979 j 1935). Body techniques. Sociology and Psychology: Essays, translated
by Ben Brewster. London: RKP.
McDonald,M.2014. Bodies and cadavers.In P. Harvey,E.Conlin Casells,G.Evans,H.Knox,E.B.Silva,
N.Thoburn and K.Woodward,.(eds.), Objects and Material, pp. 128-143.^4 Routiedge Companion.
Abingdon: Routiedge.
Merleau-Ponty, M.1962. Phetiotnenology ofPerception,translated by Colin Smith.London:Routiedge &
Kegan Paul.
1964. The Prhnacy ofPerception,translated by Janies Edie.Evanston,IL:Northwestern University
Press.
Navaro-Yashin,Y. 2012. lhe .\Itike-Beíieve Space:Affective Geography in a Posí-Wíif Pí>/ií)'.Durham, NC.
Duke University Press.
Pink, S. 2009. Doing Sensory Ethnography. London: Sage.
Roodenburg,H.2004. Bourdieu: Issues of embodiment and authenticity. Etnofor 17(1/2):215—226.
Rutherford,D. 2016 Aflect theory and the empirical. Animal Revieiv ofAnthropology 45: 285-300.
Strathern,A.and P. Stowart 201 1. L.mbodiment and Personhood.In F. Mascia Lees (ed.),/4 Compan
ion to the Anthropology of the Body and Embodiment. Oxford:Wiley-BlackweU.
Toren,C.1999 Mind,MateriaUty and History Explorations in Fijian Eí/moprcip/iy.London and NewYork,
NY:Routiedge.
194 Maryon McDonald
2012. Imagining the world that warrants our imagination. The revclation of ontogeny.
Cambridge Anthropology 30 (1):64-79.
Vilaça,A.2005. Chronically unstable bodies: Reflections on Amazonian corpor.ilities.Jt>í<r«(i/ ofthe
Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 11(3):445-464.
2009. Bodies in perspective: A critique of the embodiment paradigin from the point of
view ofAmazonian ethnography.In Lambert,H.and M.McDonald (eds.). Social Bodies, pp. 129-147.
New York,NY and Oxford:Berghahn.
Viveiros de Castro,E.1998. Cosmological perspectivism in Amazônia and elscwherc. Four Lectures
given in the Department of Social Anthropology, University of Cambridge, February—March.
Hau Masterdass Series Volume í. online at http://www.haujournal.org/indcx.php/masterclass/
issue/view/Masterclass%20Volume%201 (accessed 20 September 2014).
Chapter I 2
Femíníst anthropology and

the questíon of gender
Jessica Johnson
Bríngíng women ín
In 1974 it was possiblc, aiul ncccssary, for Michelle Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere to
argue that antliropologists nccdcd 'to bcgin to think about women'(1974: vi). Indeed,
until that tinic, vcry littlc had bcon published in anthropology that looked in detail at the
lives and perspectives of wonicii (see chapter l).There were a few exceptions, of course,
notably the vvork ofAudrey Richards(1982[1956]),for exainple,andanumberofimpres-
sive studies of women that had been published by the wives of male anthropologists,
generally untrained in anthropology themselves,whose work received litde attention from
professional anthropologists.' I rom the 1970s, inspired by the women's liberation move-
ment, women in anthropology began to place women at the centre oftheir research.They
were convinced that anthropology as a discipline was impoverished by its seeminglack of
interest in women,and argued that paying attention to women's lives would lead to richer
ethnographic accounts and more reliable theory.
One of the few anthropological texts that these early pioneers ofwhat we might call at
this stage 'the anthropology of women'(Moore 1988:6) rather than the 'anthropology of
gender', had in their arsenal was a chapter by Edwin Ardener,'Belief and the problem of
women'(1972). Perhaps unwittingly,Ardener had provided a key reference for these early
debates. He argued that it was not the intrinsic signihcance (or otherwise) of women's
activities that led to tiieir relative absence from anthropological texts, but rather the fact
that they tended to offer visiting ethnographers less satisfying models ofsociety than male
informants did,and less overarching accounts ofsocial life. He suggested that women were
lesslikely to ofFer insights and explanations that met male anthropologists'expectations; as
a result, women seemed inarticulate and made frustrating interviewees.
Ardener's article was taken up by early anthropologists of women as a seminal text, at
the time one of few available texts about women.It was certainly influential for Rosaldo
and Lamphere, whose own volume marked the arrival of the anthropology of women.
They began from the assumption of generalised inequality between men and women,
seeing women as univcrsally subordinated to men.' In their view:'all contemporary soci-
eties are to some cxtent male-dominated, and although the degree and expression of
female subordination vary greatly,sexual asymmetry is presendy a universal fact of human
social life'(1974: 3). l or her part, Rosaldo argued that women's subordination could be
explained by the fact that, generally speaking,'a good part of a woman's adult life is spent
giving birth to and raising children [and this] leads to a differentiation of domestic and
public sphercs of activity'(1974: 23). C.onfmed to the domestic sphere,generally the home.
196 Jessica Johnson
where they are socially isolated and occupied by the tasks of household labour and child
care, women lack access to the kinds of status, respect or cultural value that nicn enjoy.
Writing in the same volume, Sherry Ormer (1974) ofFered a more symbolic (see
chapter 8), or structuralist (see chapter 2) analysis. She asked:'What could there be in the
generalised structure and conditions of existence, common to every culture, that would
lead every culture to place a lower value upon women?'(p. 71). Her response was that
women were seen as closer to nature than men,who were considered more cultural. She
did not see these associations as necessary in the sense that they could never bc difFerent,
but she did argue that they were universal,The association of women vvith nature, she
suggested, provided a ready rationale for female subordination. For Ortner, culture was
'the notion of human consciousness (i.e. systems of thought and technology), by means
of which humanity attempts to assert control over nature'(p. 72). Culture was thus, by
definition, transcendem over nature.
There are three aspects to women's relative closeness to nature in Ortncr's account:
women's physiology, as expressed in reproduction and child rearing; women's social roles
as mothers and in child care; and what she calls'woman's psyche', which she relates to the
ways in which young girls and women are socialised to engage in more personalised
modes of relating to others while men engage in more abstract or general modes ofrelat-
ing.Thus,for both Rosaldo and Ortner, it was largely women's roles in child care and
reproduction that led to their secondary status. Both authors were looking for universal
answers to the question ofseemingly universal female subordination.
Although contributors to Rosaldo and Lamphere's volume began from the assumption
of women's universal subordination,they sought to show that sexual inequality was'not a
necessary condition of human societies but a cultural product [and therefore] accessible to
change'(1974:13).Taken together, the chapters higlilight the ethnographic range of dif-
ferences between men and women,the wide array of social roles women play, differences
in their pubHc status,cultural definitions and daily activities.They thus show women's lives
to be more varied and interesting than had previously been assumed. Despite relating
women's subordinate status to their biological role in reproduction,they did not see women's
position as biologically determined.They recognised the significance of cultural'interpre-
tations ofbiology'(p.5);difíerences in the degree to which societies were male dominated;
and the possibility that'with changes in technology,population size, ideas, and aspirations,
our social order can change'(p. 7).'Surely ,they say,'the diversity of human cultures and
the evidence of societies in which women have achieved considerable recognitdon and
social status might make us optimistic about the possibility of realising sexual equality in
our world today'(p. 14).The politics offeminism, and the urgency of women's struggles
in the 1970s,were clearly reflected in this early work that sought to bring women into the
anthropological fold.
However, it did not take long before the idea of the universal association of women
with nature came under scrutiny. Carol MacCormack and Marilyn Strathern (1980) soon
transformed the terms of debate by arguing that the concepts of nature and culture, and
the meanings associated with male and female persons, were not 'given' and they could
not be 'free from the biases of the culture in which the concepts were constructed'
(MacCormack 1980: 6). MacCormack thus described Ortner's argument as 'remarkable
for its ethnocentricity'(p. 16).The sigmficance oftheir volume was two-fold.They argued
that women were not universally associated with nature, and, more radically, that the
nature/culture distinction itself was not universal. Rather, they suggested that this
Feminist anthropology and gender 197
dichotomy vvas bcttcr undcrstood ds a product ofa particular (cultural andWestern) mode
ofinterpreting thc wt^rid.
This latter positioii was nu^st clcarly articulated by Strathem (1980), who offèred an
ethnographic cxaniinatioii td thc distinctions Hageners of Highland Papua New Guinea
make between catcgorics oi donicstic and wild, and how tliese relate to their distinctions
between male and tcinalc. Shc argucd against the straightforward mappingof'our'nature-
culture distinction onto I lagcncrs'wild—doniestic distinction,showingin some detail how
they difFered. l he wild—doincstic distinction did not relate in a direct manner to Hageners'
gender categories. In some contexts, women were considered wild and men domesticated,
in other contexts it was tiie other way around.The domestic and the wild were also dif-
ferently related to each other than nature and culture were in Ortners framework.They
were opposites but they were ntn hierarchical or processual in the sense that nature might
either be transformed into culture or dominated by it.The domestic domain was notseen
as colonising the wild, and the human socialisation process was not represented as the
transcendence of nature by culture. Such critiques served to undermine the universalist
confidence of the early anthropolog>' of women,suggesting that more care needed to be
taken in generalising about women's status or the meanings attached to male and female
ídentities.^
MacCormack and Stratherns volume might be said to have marked a key point of
transition from the anthropology of women to the anthropology ofgender.This transition
continued apace throughout the 1980s and beyond,as ethnographic and theoretical work
continued to unsettle easy distinctions between male and female social roles,revealed vast
differences in cultural interpretations of social reproduction and experiences ofgendered
identities, and exposed the impossibilit>' of generahsing about'men' and 'women'in a
meaningful sense. It has also become clear that gender is relational, and that studies of
masculinity, as well as fbmininity, have a great deal to oflfer the discipline (e.g. Ormer and
Whitehead 1981; Shapiro 1981; Côllier and Yanagisako 1987; Cornwall and Lindisfarne
1994; Moore 1994). However, as we shall see below, the deconstruction of gender that
such studies entailed has not always been easy to reconcile with feminist scholarship ded-
ícated to a focus on women.
Can there be a feminist ethnography?

FoUowing on the heels ofthese developments,Lila Abu-Lughod (1990),writing explicitly
as a feminist anthropologist, posed the question 'Can there be a feminist ethnography?'
Abu-Lughod,while cognisant of developments in the anthropology ofgender,maintained
a primary interest in the lives of women,in ali their social and cultural diversity. Her article
represented a different kind of movement beyond the anthropology of women,critiquing
that early work for not having questioned the social scientific goal of objectivity. As we
have seen, early interventions argued that leaving women out of ethnographic texts dis-
torted anthropological accounts. The suggestion was that anthropologists would gain
more objective, or complete, knowledge ofthe societies they sought to understand ifthey
included women more thoroughly in their ethnographic studies.
In the years since the publication of Rosaldo and Lamphere's volume,feminist anthro
pologists had begun to question the goal of objectivity.They no longer saw objectivity as
a neutra! aim.This view built on work by reflexive anthropologists who had stressed that
so-called ethnographic facts were actually the outcome of particular interactions in
198 Jessica Johnson
specific contexts.Their work led to the acceptance that no two anthropological accounts
of the same people and place could be expected to look the same. By this point, anthro-
pologists had also become much more concerned with the processes and cfFects of writing
and representation (Clifford and Marcus 1986;see chapter 8).
In tandem with these developments in anthropology, feminist scholars in other dis
ciplines also attacked ideas of objectívity. Abu-Lughod charts these debates, and shows
that there were several difíerent angles that feminists took. In the history and phiioso-
phy of science for example, Evelyn Fox Keller (1982; 1985) argued that distinctions
made in science between subjectivity and objectivity were deeply gendered, and that
science valorised qualities considered mascuHne (e.g. reason, detachnient,impersonality).
Keller thus distinguished between 'objectivism'- the ideology of science — and true
'objectivity'(Abu-Lughod 1990:13).The feminist legal scholar Catherine MacKinnon
(1982) went further.She argued that objectivity was'a strategy of male power'by which
'men,always dominant,create the world from their point of view, particularly in objec-
tifying women,and then adopt an epistemological stance — namely objectivity — that
corresponds to the world they have created'(Abu-Lughod 1990:14).Whiie Abu-Lughod
sounded a word of caution against the totalising nature of MacKinnons position, she
highlighted the crucial point that ifwe believe that there is inequality between men and
women and that perspective aflfects understandings of the world, then 'there is no
ungendered reality or ungendered perspective'(MacKinnon 1982: 636, cited in Abu-
Lughod 1990:15).
Reflecting on these advances in 1990,Abu-Lughod laments:Where have the feminist
anthropologists been? Where were the studies that might'bring to life what it means to be
a woman in other places and under difíerent conditions'? (p. 27). She did not see much
feminist ethnography, despite the fact that changing understandings of the discipline of
anthropology might well have opened the way for it. Notably, for example, no feminist
anthropologists were included in the Writing Culture project that rethought the way in
which anthropologists wrote and the kinds of texts they produced (Clifford and Marcus
1986). One part ofthe answer as to why feminist anthropologists had not been more visible,
according to Abu-Lughod, is to do with the politics of academia. Job security greatly
improves the likelihood ofinnovative work,and academic job security (then and now) is
a privilege disproporrionately enjoyed by men (1990:17).
Another part of the problem is that women's earlier experimental texts, which were
often written by the untrained wives ofanthropologists,had been ignored.Instead oflook-
ing to these texts for inspirarion when they wanted to rethink genres of anthropological
writing, anthropologists involved in the writing-culture project had turned to the elite,
professional disciplines of philosophy and literary studies. In a context in which women's
contributions were dismissed as unprofessional, descriptive rather than theoretical, based
on personal experience rather than authoritative literature and so on,Abu-Lughod argued
that early feminist anthropologists were so busy trying to 'establish their credibility, gain
acceptance and further their intellectual and political aims'(1990:19) as feminists that they
were not in a position to take risks or experiment in their work.
Nevertheless,Abu-Lughod ended her piece on a hopeful note.She identified a growing
awareness that the category of'women' was diverse and inflected by economic factors,
race, sexuality, narionality, rehgion and so on,and noted that recognition of this diversity
was occurring at the same time that anthropologists themselves were also becoming more
diverse in terms of their origins as well as their gender. In turn, clear-cut distinctions
between 'honie' and ticld' wcrc bcing unsettled, and explicidy debated. Abu-Lughod
argued chat:
feminist ethnograpliics,... cthnographics that explore what work,marriage, mother-

hood,sexuíiliry-, cdiication. poctry, tclcvision, poverty,cr illness mean to other women,
can ofFcr fcrninists a way ofrcplacing thcir presumptions ofa female experience with
a grounded scnsc of our connnonalities and difterences.
(1990:27)
Indeed,in an cxpiicit ctforr to rcspond to feminist critiques of objecdvity and representa-

tion,Abu-Lughod (1993) wcnt on to publish a book that deliberately eschewed generali-
sations in order to strcss thc particularity of experience and the inevitable situatedness of
storyteiiing, vvhicii were rwo iinportant messages offeminist tíieory.
Engagíng with theories of performativíty

When anthropologists working on gender have taken inspiradon from theorists, Judith
Buder, and in particular iier book Gender Trouble (1990), have figured prominendy.The
book emphasises the iinportance of performance to the creadon ofgender idenddes andit
can be secn as presenting a radical constructionist posidon. Budefs aim in Gender Trouble
was to'to trace the way in which gender fables establish and circulate the misnomer ofnat
ural facts'(p. xiii). According to Buder,sex categories (male and female) consdtute'a discur-
sive formation that acts as a naturalised foundadon'(p. 37), and gender is defíned as 'the
repeated stylization of the body ... within a higlily rigid regulatory frame that congealfs]
over time to produce the appearance ofsubstance,of a natural sort of being'(p.33,cited by
Franklin 2002: 310). She terms these processes'performance*. In part,Buder's argument is
teminiscent of MacCôrmack and Strathern's emphasis on the contextualspecificity ofwhat
is considered natural. She posits that a binary difference between male and female does not
exist 'as a presocial fact' (I ranklin 2002: 310), but rather is achieved or produced through
discursive and enibodied performance. Thus,in a radical move,she quesdons the nodon of
sex as a non-cultural category that can be separated out and disdnguished fiom gender.
Work by anthropologists that engages Butler's ideas and pushes against the edges of
gender theory has often appeared in studies ofkinship.In fact,the study ofkinship and the
study of gender have a great deal in common.Both are fields of anthropological enquiry
that have emphasised distinctions between what is natural and what is cultural, what is
biologicaUy determined and what is the result ofhuman creadvity (Yanagisako andCollier
1987)."* A key aspect of early work on gender was an emphasis on the disdncdon between
gender — as a social role — and sex — as the physical body (e.g. Ormer 1974;Rosaldo and
Lamphere 1974; Ortner and Whitehead 1981). By demonstradng that ideas about bodies
were distinct from the bodies themselves,feminist scholars posited that the cultural values
attached to bodies might shift, and they questioned the seeming inevitability ofwomen's
association with thc domestic realm.
Janet Carsten (2004) has suggested that disringuishing between sex and gender led quite
quickly to a 'theoretical impasse'(p. 62).The disdncdon rested on a separadon between
biology and culture and the studies that foUowed largely focused on variadons in cultural
understandings and symbols ofgender.What was left unexamined and untheorised was'the
quesdon of the analyric signihcance of the actual physical attributes of the body (p. 62).
200 Jessica Johnson
Subsequendy, anthropologists were accused of having 'assumed the existence of natural

differences between women and men when they should have sought to explain how such
differences were conceived'(p. 62).They had focused on culture (gender) and neglected
biology (sex). Buder's position chaüenged these distinctions by arguing that sex was as
much ofa discursive construction as gender.
Carsten examines construcrionist arguments, including those of Butler and Michel
Foucault (1978), who also set great store by culturally and historically situated discourse,
and argues that these kinds of approach are,like the arguments they sought to overcome,
too totalising, with discourse about sex and gender becoming determining in place of
biological sex difíerences (Carsten 2004:66).Ultimately,she argues that the franiing ofthe
debate in terms of the disrincdon between sex and gender has restricted anthropologicai
work, limiting the possibilities for research. Building on her own Malay ethnography,
Carsten shows how gender differentiation varies over the life course with reference to
events such as birth, marriage and death. In this way, gender differentiation interacts with
kinship,and the two need to be examined together.
Carsten does not advocate doing away with biology,or ideas of what is fixed and given.
She says it is not only Western understandings that contain a sense of the difference
between sex and gender,between what is given and what is acquired or learned,and sub-
ject to change throughout the life course.She suggests that instead of assuming how these
distinctions are made and how they relate to other aspects of people's thinking about
gender, kinship, relationships and so on, we should enquire about these categories and
processes. For example, her Malay informants consider that people become kin through
living and eating together, and as Carsten points out,'it is difficult to know whether this
should be considered as a"social" or a"biological" process'since it incorporates aspects of
both (p. 81). For Carsten,then, kinship brings empirical substance and ethnographic pos
sibilities to the study of gender and there is much to be gained by 'bringing together sex
and gender as a way of retaining biology as part of what anthropologists have to under-
stand'(p. 82). Other scholars who have done just that,incorporating and moving beyond
Butler's ideas ofperformativity in the process,include Middleton (2000),Ramberg (2014),
Weston (1997 [1991]) and Franklin (2002).
Anthropoiogy and feminísnn:An awkward relationship?

It is worth pausing at this point to reílect on the relationship between anthropoiogy and
feminism, discussions of which bear the imprint of developments in the broader anthro
poiogy of gender.
In a widely read article, Rosaldo (2006 [1980]) noted that, although by 1980 there was
'plenty of data "on women"', when it came to writing about them,few anthropologists
knew where to begin. She argued that the problem was no longer a lack of data, but of
research questions (p. 108).Although,in general terms,questions about human origins had
gone out of favour in anthropoiogy, those kinds of questions still dominated feminist
writings, where 'were things always as they are today?' was still comnionly asked (p. 108).
Non-Western societies were taken as sources for answers to questions about the distant
past and this seemed to be the kind ofinformation feminists expected anthropologists to
supply. Rosaldo's concern was that such universalist questions lent themselves to univer-
salist answers (of the kind she herself had provided in 1974). By 1980, she argued that
feminist anthropologists needed new questions, rather than accounts of how it ali began'.
By posing difícrcnt tjiicstu>ns shc liopcd ;intliropologists would have niore than raw data
to contribute to fcniinist debates. In her view, thcy needed to be able to analyse relation-
ships between nien and waînen 'as aspects ot a wider social context*(p. 120).By this point,
she wanted to foregnnind etiinographic speciticities ratlier than abstract theorising.While
Rosaldo \vas clear that slie did not want to deny 'that biological facts like reproduction
leave their mark on wonieirs lives'. she wanted to piace greater emphasis on sociocultural
context and focus on the ways in wliich 'inen and women both participate in andhelp to
reproduce the institutional tbrins tiiat niay opprcss,liberatejoin or divide them*(p. 122).®
In addition to coneern tn er the developnient of the relationship between anthropology
and feminism, we ean also see here a shift towards incorporating men into the study of
gender rather than advoeating an anthropology of women.
Twenty years later, Ana Maria Alonso (2000) published a response to Rosaldois piece.
In the meantinie, feminist seholarship had moved on significandy and the field of gender
studies had becoine incíre finnly established. Scholars such as Judith Buder had come to
prominence and m.iny of the qiiestions being asked had in fact changed.Alonso openedher
paper by describing a moment during a feminist reading group when a new member men-
tíoned menstruation as a possible "'point of departure"for a feeling ofcommonaUty among
women'(p. 221). She was immediately accused of being an 'essentiahst'— someone who
believes that gender is fixeti and deterniined — to which she replied that currendy dominant
approaches in feminist seholarship were 'engaged in a denial of the body'(pp.221—222).
Reflecting on this incident,Alonso asked whether'essentiaHst'had become a'gatekeep-
inglabel' that prevented the recognition of'biocultural bodily processes'that had largely
been put to one side in the theoretical shift towards discourse (p. 222). She recognised
many academic feminists' fear that acknowledging a bodily basis to gender would imply
that gender inequality is inevitable (p. 222) Indeed, many ofAlonso's own students defined
Rosaldo's work as 'essentialist'. Most of these students identífied as Uberal feminists; for
them,'freedom meant ehoice, and gender could not be chosen if it was in any way
anchored in human biolog>' — particularly in sexual reproduction'(p. 223). Alonso was
struck by what she saw as the privilege underpinning this position.These were women
who had benefitted from advances such as:
contraception, nianimograms, breast reconstructive surgery, infant formulas, breast

pumps, child care alternativos, sanitary towels and so on;for them it was possible to
forget that their access to these things was the result of'earHer generations'struggles
against men's control of women's [bodies], against gender bias in the medicai estab-
lishment,[and] against state regulation of women's sexuaUty.
(p.223)
By contrast, she argued that less privileged women, whether in the US or elsewhere,
tended to be'more aware ofthe materiality ofthe body because they have to struggê with
the changes brought on by their cycles, pregnancies, and illnesses in ways that carry more
sensory immediacy'(p. 223).
Alonso posited that anthropological work done in the 1970s had actually been more
bolistic than later work on gender, which she considered to have placed too much emphasis
on discourse,seeing things as constantly in flux and inequalities as negotiated.In her view,
more recent work that dcconstructs the idea of'women' as the subject offeminism, has
little to ofFer women outside the academy or ... activists working in battered women s
202 Jessica Johnson
shelters,legal aid,and numerous women's health,social and political organisations'(p.229).

She concluded that a debilitating division had emerged'between feminists who believe in
women and those who do not*(p.229).Evident here is the status offeminism and gender
studies as contested fields, characterised by debate, disagreement and tension between
feminist scholarship and feminist political action.
Picking up on such firictions, Strathern memorably characterised the relationship
between anthropology and feminism as'awkward'(1987). Her intervention was motivated
in part by her observation of the limited degree to which feminism and feminist anthro
pology had penetrated or transformed the discipline of anthropology as a whole.She used
the term'awkward'to signal a tension between feminist scholarship and anthropology that
is, in her words 'a doorstep hesitation rather than barricades' (p. 286). Her thesis is that
anthropology and feminism have certain things in common,notably a shared emphasis on
experience, but that they are different in ways that mean that they do not confront or
challenge each other head on, but rather strike tangential blows and sideways, mocking
glances, because of their contrasting perspectives.
Central to her discussion is a consideration of the ways in which anthropology and
feminism relate to their respective others.Anthropology,she says, deals with an other that
is socially or culturally distinct; while for feminism,the other is patriarchy:'the institutions
and persons who represem male domination', or in its short hand form: men (p. 288).
While feminism operates in opposition to its other,anthropology is committed to a stance
of openness towards others' experiences and perspectives.The anthropological aim is to
'create a relation with the Other'(p.289).Strathern suggests that feminism mocks anthro-
pologists' efforts to create collaboration, dialogue or even co-authorship with their infor-
mants by pointing out the inevitable asymmetries of power between anthropologists and
the people they work with and study.Anthropologists are aware of this, but collaboration
remains their 'ideal ethical situation' (p. 290), an idea that feminism chaUenges because,
'from a feminist perspective ... there can be no collaboration with the Other'(p. 290).
Although this feminist critique is based upon different premises, it hits anthropology
where it hurts.In its turn, anthropology mocks feminism:feminism contains the idea that
feminists come to know the self through its difference from the other. For feminists 'It is
an achievement to perceive the gulf [between women and patriarchy], and in turn, an
ethical position,for this is what validates women's commitment to one another'(p. 290).
Anthropology mocks the idea that feminists can achieve this separation because anthro
pologists' ethnographic work indicates just how much is shared by feminists with the
society they critique:feminists can be seen to operate'within the sociocultural constraints
of their own society'(p. 291).
The idea of the awkward relationship encapsulates, for many feminist anthropologists,
the tensions they feel personally as they strive to be both feminists and anthropologists.
It also gets to the heart of the question of how feminist anthropologists deal with differ
ence. Strathern's thesis has nevertheless eHcited critique.Thus,Abu-Lughod has suggested
that Strathern is guilty of retreating 'from the problem of power' (Abu-Lughod 2006
[1991]: 154). She points out the contrast between the relative position,in terms of power,
that anthropologists and feminists have tended to hold in relation to their respective
others. Anthropologists generally stand on the side of the more dominant West, in the
West—non-West encounter (whether they are Western born,Western educated or simply
schooled in the discourse and practice ofthe discipline ofanthropology), whereas feminists
are associated with the subordinate position in their confrontation with patriarchy.
Moreovcr, according to Abu-Lughod, feniinism has struggled more openly and success-
flilly with differcncc within its own ranks than anthropology has. Nevertheless, she rec-
ognised incrcasing divcrsity within anthropology by the 1990s. She thus speaks ofhalfie'
anthropologists. hcrsclf includcd/whose national or cultural identdty is mixed by virtue of
migration, overscas cducation, or parentage' (p. 153).** Abu-Lughod argues that feminist
and halfie anthropologists sharc an inabüity to'comfortably assume the selfofanthropology'
(p. 155). I his givcs thcni a grcatcr awareness of issues of power and posirionality, as well as
the differenccs bctwcen the various audiences they write for. Unlike earlier generations of
anthropologists, they havc to ask themselves 'what happens when the other that the
anthropologist is studying is siinultaneously constructed as,at least partiaily,a self?'(p. 155).
What Abu-Lughod points us to here, in part, are debates within feminism and feminist
anthropology centring on ditfcrences of gender, race and class (e.g. Sacks 1989).
Postcoloníal critiques
Other scholars havc not lookcd as favourably on feminism as Abu-Lughod (e.g.Amadiume
1987; Oyòwúmí 2()()3a).^ Aihwa Ong (2001 [1988]), for example, echoing Strathern's
point that feminists operatc within the same socioculmral world as the patriarchy they
oppose,accuses feminist anthropologists ofinappropriately applyingtheWestern standards
and goals of'rationality and individualism'(p. 108) to other societies. Moreover,she sug-
gests that 'when feminists look overseas, they frequendy seek to establish their [own]
authority on the backs of non-Westcrn women,determining for them the meanings and
goals of their lives'(p. 108). In this sense,she argues that for feminists working outside the
West, the other is not men, as Strathern had suggested, but non-Western women,so that
feminists and the non-Wcstern women they study stand in an oppositional relationship to
one another.
Ong's concern is with the 'intersections between colonial discourse and feminist repre-
sentations of non-Wcstern women'(p.108)and she focuses on books written about'women
in developmcnt'to make her point. She suggests that there is a neo-colonial quality to the
ways in which feminist scholars write about non-Western women,who are 'taken as an
unproblcmatic universal category' in much of this writing, and whose status is judged
against'a set of legal, political, and social benchmarks thatWestern feminists consider crit
icai in achieving a power balance between men and women'(p. 110). In other words,
non-Western women are measured by Western standards and compared with Western
feminists' own goals and ideais. As a result, feminists reinforce their 'belief in their own
cultural superiority'(p. 113). She urges feminist anthropologists not to give up,but rather
to alter their approach in order to understand the lives and ambitions of women in other
parts of the world on their own terms and to 'accept that others often choose to conduct
their lives separately from our particular vision of the future'(p. 116)
Ong's critique rcsonates with a highly influential article published by Chandra Mohanty
the same year. Mohanty argued that much Western feminist writing obliterates the
'material and historicíil' variety of women's lives in the third world and ends up presenting
a'composite [and] singular "third world woman"'(1988: 62), characterised by her subor-
dination.® She sees in this creation of the generic third world woman the workings of
power in feminist writing. Ong and Mohanty's critiques also chime with the work of a
number of African feminist scholars, which constitutes a rich resource for those seeking
to engage with other ways of thinking about gender both historically and in relation to
204 Jessica Johnson
contemporary concems. In different ways, Ifi Amadiume (1987; 1997), Oyèrónké

Oyèwúmí (1997;2003b) and Nkiru Uwechia Nzegwu (2006),for example, challenge us
to rethink deeply held assumptions about the significance of motherhood for women's
social status and highlight the detrimental effects of colonisation upon gender relations in
África. They emphasise the contrasting historical experiences of European and African
women,and argue that the tools ofEuro-American feminist analysis are insufficient to the
task of understanding African women's hves.
In a similar vein, Saba Mahmood's (2005) study of Egyptian Muslim women members
ofthe piety movement in Cairo presents us with a profound challenge.The wonien Mah-
mood worked with did not necessarily share the goals of Western liberal feminists -
namely freedom and equahty - and thus Mahmood asks:'does a commitment to the idea
of equahty in our own hves endow us with the capacity to know that this ideal captures
what is or should be fiilfiUing for everycne else?'If not,she continues,'as is sureiy the case,
then I think we need to rethink, with far more humility than we are accustomed to, what
feminist pohtics really means'(2005: 38). Indeed, this challenge can be said to lie at the
heart of the tension between feminism and anthropology.
Reflecting on the ways in which the hves ofMushm women had come under the scrutiny
ofEuropean and American media and social commentators,including feminists,in the wake
of the atrocities of 11th September 2001, Abu-Lughod issued two warnings to feminist
anthropologists.One is that we must not succumb to the polarising trap of placing'feminism
on the side of the West'(2002: 788).We need to be able to think about feminisms in the
plural.The second is against vocations ofsaving' women in other parts of the world. She
suggests that the very idea ofsaving other women is patronising and insensitive to other ways
of understanding their hves (2002;2013).Instead ofsaving Muslim women she asks that:
where we seek to be active in the affairs of distant places ... we do so in the spirit of
support for those within those communities whose goals are to make women's (and
men's) hves better .,.[and that we] use a more egalitarian language of alliances, coa-
htions, and solidarity,instead of salvation.
(2002:789)
Conclusíon
Beginning with the formarion offeminist anthropology from the 1970s, this chapter has
examined the development of the anthropology of gender. Recognising the exclusion of
women from anthropological texts,pioneers in this field sought to establish an anthropology
ofwomen,which soon grew and diversified into the broader study ofgender relations and
gendered identities. In particular, we have considered advances in the field of kinship
studies, where the mutual influence of anthropological work and the writings of gender
theorists is particularly evident.These debates continue to foreground ideas about nature
and culture similar to those that animated earlier studies. However,the move to interrogate
nature/biology (rather than simply focusing on culture/gender) has unsettled the distinction
between sex and gender that was central to earlier work. Other important developments
in the anthropology of gender that I have not been able to consider in any detail in this
chapter include the emergence of studies of masculinity (e.g. Gutmann 1997; Oscila and
Osella 2000;Connell 2005 [1995];Simpson 2009) and sexuahty (e.g. Kulick 1997;BocUstorfi'
2005; 2007; Cornwall, et al. 2011; Lyons and Lyons 2011;Tamale 2011; Spronk 2014).
Over time,as wc liavc sceii,scholars have wTestled with the relarionship between feminism
as a political comniitmcnt to gender equalirv', and the anthropological imperatíve not to
assume the content or meaning ofgendered identiries and gender reladons elsewhere.The
seemingly inevitable tension or'awkwardness' between anthropology and feminism raises
the possibility that 'feminist anthropology' is a contradiction in terms,and yet,somehow,
sensitive feminist anthropological enquiry continues to provide provocative ethnographic
and theoretical interventions (e.g. Arnfred 2011; Hodgson 2011).
In conclusion, it is worth reflecting on just how successful feminist anthropology and
the anthropolog)' ofgender have been. In the 21 st century it is hard to imagine an anthro-
pologist, male or female, explicitly feminist or not, proceeding to write about a society or
a social phenomenon without explicidy considering the gendered dimensions — without
talking to both men and women, thinking careflilly about how their perspectives differ
and why that might be, looking at their various activities and roles, or the ways in which
men and women cooperate in the same tasks. Nor would contemporary anthropologists
necessarily assume the relevance of binary gender categories in a particular ethnographic
setting.Whatever they were most interested in and whatever their resulting ethnography was
about,these things would make their way into the text.They would be built into the methods
of the study during fieldwork in order to find ways of accessing male and female voices,
perspectives and activities. And in situations where that was not possible, these limitations
would be discussed, as would the implications of the ethnographer's own gendered iden-
tity.The ground really has shifted.
Notes
1 Perhaps the besc known of these texts is Nisa (Shostak 1981). For an overview ofthis genre,see
the introduction to Lcwin (2006) and Abu-Lughod (1990).
2 It is worth noting that another volume published the following year (Reiter 1975) did not share
this approach. See especially the chapter by Gayle Rubin.
3 As Heywood (chapter 14) demonstrates, Strathern's argument has also had a profound and
lasting influence beyond anthropological debates about gender,in particular, in relation to the
development of what has come to be known as'the ontological turn'.
4 See Carsten (2004) for a criticai discussion ofYanagisako and Colliefs position.
5 See Nicholson (1982) for an early (and criticai) response to Rosaldo's argument.
6 'Halfie' is not a terni that has taken off in anthropology, but it is one that Abu-Lughod finds
usefiil; I employ it here by way of reference to her work.
7 I refer here to the comparison, discussed above, that she made in the early 1990s between
anthropology and feminism,and her sense at that time that feminists had been struggling more
successfully with their own internai differences than anthropologists liad. Nevertheless, as
we shall see below, Abu-I ughod is by no means uncritical of feminism, as is evident in her
condemnation of the ways in which many feminists have depicted Muslim women since 2001
(Abu-Lughod 2002; 2013).
8 By'Western feminism' Mohanty refers to feminism that takes its*primary point ofreference [as]
feminist interests as they h.we been articulated in the US and Western Europe'(1988: 61) and
she suggested that middle-class urban African and Asian scholars are often also implicated in the
hierarchical approach to feminist writing that she critiqued.
References
Abu-Lughod, L. 1990. Can there be a feminist ethnography? Womeii & Performance: A Jourtial of
Feminist llieor)' 5 (1): 1-21.
206 Jessíca Johnson
1993. Writing Wometi's Worlds: Bedouin Storíes. Berkeley, CA: University of Califórnia
Press.
2002. Do Musiim women really need saving? Anthropologicai reflections on cultural
relativism and its others. Amerícan Ant/iropologist 104 (3): 783-790.
2006 [1991]. Writing against culture. In E. Lewin (ed.), Fcminist Atithropoloj^y: A Reader,
pp. 153-169. Oxford:Blackwell.
2013.Do Muslim Women tieed Saving? Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Alonso,A.M.2000.The use and abuse offeminist theory: Fear, dust, and coinmensality. In A. Lugo
and B. Maurer (eds.), Gender Matters: Rereading Michelle Z Rosaldo, pp. 221-231. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Amadiume,1.1987. Male Daughters, Female Husbands London: Zed Books.
1997. Reinventing África: Matriarchy, Religion and Culture. London: Zed Books.
Ardener,E. 1972. Belief and the problem of women.In J.S. La Fontaine (ed.), Tlie liiterprctation of
Ritual, pp. 135-158. London:Tavistock.
Arnfred,S.2011.Sexuality and Gender Politics in Mozambiquc:Rethinking Gender ih /l/rico.Woodbridge:
James Currey.
Boellstorff.T. 2005. The Gay Archipelago: Sexuality and Nation in Indonésia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
2007. A Coincidetue of Desires: Anthropology, Queer Studies, Indonésia. Durhani, NC: Duke
University Press.
Buder.J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion ofidentity. London: Routledge.
Carsten,J. 2004. Afrer Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CliffordJ.and G.Marcus (eds.) 1986. Writing Culture:The Poetics and Politics ofEthnography.Berkeley,
CA:University of Califórnia Press.
Collier,J.E and S.J.Yanagisako (eds.) 1987. Gender and Kinship: Essays Toward a Unifred Analysis. Paio
Alto, CA:Stanford University Press.
Connell,R.W.2005 [1995]. Masculinities. Berkeley,CA: University of Califórnia Press.
Cornwall,A.and N.Lindisfàrne (eds.) 1994.Dislocating Masculinity: Comparative Ethnographies. London:
Roudedge.
Cornwall, A.,J. Edstrom and A. Greig (eds.) 2011. Men and Developnient: Politicising Masculinities.
London:Zed Books.
Foucault,M.1978. The History ofSexuality Volume l:The Will to Knowledge. London:Penguin Books.
Franklin, S. 2002. Biologization revisited: Kinship theory in the context of the new biologies. In
S. Franklin and S. McKinnon (eds.), Rektive Values: Reconfrguring Kinship Studies, pp. 302-325.
Durham,NC:Duke University Press.
Gutmann, M.C. 1997. Trafficking in men: The anthropology of masculinity. Annual Review of
Anthropology 26:385—409.
Hodgson, D.L.(ed) 2011. Gender and Culture at the Limit of Rights. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Keller,E.F. 1982. Feminism and science. Signs:Journal ofWomen in Culture and Society 1 (3): 589-602.
1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven,CT: Yale University' Press.
Kulick, D. 1997.The gender ofBrazilian transgendered prosdtutes. American Anthropologist 99 (3):
574-585.
Lewin,E.(ed.) 2006. Feminist Anthropology:A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lyons,A.P.and H.D.Lyons (eds.) 20\\. Sexualities in Anthropology:A Reader. Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.
MacCormack,C.P. 1980.Nature,culture and gender:A critique.In C.P. MacCormack and M.Strathern
(eds.), Nature, Culture and Gender, pp. 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacCormack,C.P.and M.Strathern (eds.) 1980. Nature, Culture and Gender. C'ambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
MacKinnon,C.1982.Feminism,Mandsm,method and the state:An agenda for theory. Signs:Journal
ofWomen in Culture and Society 1 (3): 515-544.
Mahmood,S. 2005. Politics ofPietY:'nie hlauiic rerinil and the Feminist Shôjoí.Princeton,NJ:Princeton
UniversitA- Pross.
Middlecon, K.2()(>i >. I low Karcinbola men become mothers.InJ. Carscen (ed.), Cultnres ofRelatedness:
New Approaclws to the Stndy oj Kinsliip, pp. 104—127. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Mohanty, C. T. 1988. Undcr Wcstorn eyes: Peniinist scholanhip and colonial discourses. Feminist
Revien' 30:61—88.
Moore, H.L. 1988. I-eniinisw and Anthropology. Cambridge: Polity.
1994..4 Pii.^sion for Difleretiie: Fssays in Anthropology and Gender. Bioomington,IN:Indiana
University- Pross.
Nicholson, I .j. 1982. (xíiiimont on Rosaldos 'The use and abuse of anthropology'. Signs 7 (3):
732-735.
Nzegwu, N.U. 2006. Faniily Matters: Feminist Conccpts in AJHcan Pliilosophy of Cn/ítire. Albany, NY:
State University of NowYork Press.
Ong,A.2001 (1988|. CÀiloniaiisnt and modernity: Feminist re-presentadons ofwomen in non-Western
societies. In K. Bhavnani (ed.). l'eininisni and Ríire, pp. 108—118.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ortner,S.B. 1974. Is female to male as nature is to culture? In M.Z.Rosaldo and L.Lamphere (eds.),
W>niati, Culture, and Society. pp.67-88. Paio Alto, CA:Stanford University Press.
Ortner, S.B. and 11. Whitehead (eds.) 1981. Sexual Meanings:The Cultural Constniction of Gender and
Sexuality. Cambridge: C'ainbridge University Press.
Osella, F. and Osella 2000. Migration, money and masculinity in Kerala.JoHnwí of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 6 (1): 117-133.
Oyèwúmí, O. 1997. l he Invention oflVonten: Making an AJrican Sense ofWestern Gender Discourses.
Minneapolis. MN: University of Minnesota Press.
(ed.) 2003a. Afríe<ni Wonien and Feminisni: Rcjlecting on the Politics qf Sisterhood.Trenton, NJ'-
África World Press.
2003b. I he white \voman's burden: African women in Western feminist discourse. In
O. Oyèwúmí (cd.), Afriean IVonien and Feininisni: Reflecting on the Politics of Sisíerhood, pp. 25-43.
Trenton, NJ: África World Press.
Ramberg,L. 2014. Cjineti to the C,oddess:South Indian Deuadasis and the Sexuality ofReligion. Durham,
NC:Duke University Press.
Reiter, R.R.(ed.) 1975. loward an Anthropology ofWomen. London: Monthly Review Press.
Richards.A.1.1982 (19561. C^hisungu:A GirPs Itiitiation Ceremony atnong the BembaofZantbia.London:
Routledge.
Rosaldo, M.Z. 1974. Woman, culture. and society: A theoretícal overview. In M.Z. Rosaldo and
L.Lamphere (eds.). I Vonuni, Culture, and Society,pp.17-42.Paio Alto,CA:Stanford University Press.
2006 (1980).The use and abuse ofanthropology: Reflecdons on feminism in cross-cultural
understanding. In F:. l.ewin (ed.). Feminist Anthropology:A Reader,pp. 107-128.Oxford:Blackwell.
Rosaldo, M.Z. and F. l amphere 1974. Introduction. In M.Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (eds),
Woman, Culture, and Society, pp. 1—15. Paio Alto, CA:Stanford University Press.
Sacks, K.B. 1989. lòward a unified theory of class, race, and gender, American Ethnologist 16 (3):
534-550.
Shapiro,J. 1981. Anthropology and the study of gender, Soundings:An Jnternational Jourftal 64 (4):
446-65.
Shostak, M. 1981. Nisa: l he Life and Words of a IKung woman. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University
Press.
Simpson, A. 2009. Boys to A leu in the Shadow of AIDS: Masadinities and HIV Risk in Zambia.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Spronk, R. 2014. Sexuality and subjectivity: Erodc practices and the question ofbodily sensations.
Social Anthropology 22 (1): 3-21.
Strathern, M. 1980. No nature. no culture:The Hagen case. In C.P. MacCormack and M.Strathern
(eds.), Nature, CAtlture and Cender, pp. 174—222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
208 Jessica Johnson
1987. An awkward relationship: The case of feminism and anthropology. Sigiis 12 (2):
276-292.
Tamale,S.(ed) 2011. AJrican Sexualitíes:A Reader. Oxford: Pambazuka Press.
Weston,K.1997 [1991]. Families We Choose:Lesbians, Gays, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technol-
ogies. NewYork,NY:Columbia University Press.
Yanagisako,S.J. and J.F. CoUier 1987.Toward a unified analysis of kinship and gender. In J.F. CoUier
and S.J.Yanagisako (eds.), Gender and Kinship:Essays toward a Unifted Analysis, pp. 14-50.Paio Alto,
CA:Stanford University Press.
Chapter 13
No actor, no network, no theory

Bruno Latour's anthropology of the modems
Matei Candea
Introductíon: Identífyíng ANT

This chaptcr explores the tiieoretieiil niovement kno\vn as'actor-network theory', which
originatcd in seienee studies in the 1980s, and became influentíal in the social sciences
more broadly in the iate 199()s. Actor-Netvvork Theory (henceforth ANT) has been
invoked appro\*ingly or eriticiilly by anthropologists studying not only scientists at work
(Rabinow 1996; í loudart 2008; I lelmreich 2009;Candea 2013) but also a wide a range of
other topics, froin finance (Zaiooin 2003), archaeoiogy (Abu El-Haj 1998) or indigenous
rights (Kaplan and Kelly 1999) to forest fires (Candea 2008;for a review ofsome of this
work,and a refleetion on the influence ofANT on anthropology,see Oppenheim 2007).
ANT has enthralled and infuriated commentators in equal measure,in part due to the
iconoclastic style of arguinent and seemingly outrageous metaphysical claims ofsome of
its main proponents,chiefamongst them the French sociologist/anthropologist/philosopher
Bruno Latour. I.atour (2000) fainously argued,for instance,that when archaeologists daim
Egyptian pharaoh Ranises II died of tuberculosis, they are engaging in a kind of time
travei, as tuberculosis was only discovered in 1882. In a monograph on the failure of a
Parisian transport systein project, Latour included transcripts of imagined dialogues
between difFcrent niechanical eleinents ofa railway carriage (1996).And in a retrospective
paper on the growing success ofANT,he helpfuUy observed that'there are four things that
do not work with actor-network theory; the word actor, the word network, the word
theory and the hyphen!'(1999: 15).
This chapter follows the lead of Latour's gnomic utterance. After an initial extended
example of the AN T approach in practice, the chapter will develop the negative points
above.We will explain why ANT is not in fact about networks or actors in the usual sense,
and why its potentially niost productive claim - and actor-network theorists'best response
to their critics — is that it is not a theory at ali.
This negative approach niight seem facetious, but it is required because a more frontal
description ofANT,outlining what it is about or what it argues,is actually quite diflScult.
In a very general way, one can idendíy some key themes and concems associated with
ANT:an interest in inateriality and the active properties of non-humans,a concern with
tracing the cfFects of persons,objects and ideas over multdple locations,a suspicion ofsettled
social scientific explanatory franieworks and of standard dichotomies such as science
versus politics, nature versus culture or human versus non-human.These themes and con
cems are part of a broader theoretical atmosphere in which anthropology and social
science have been steeped since the 1990s (see, for instance, Strathern 1988; Gell 1998;
210 Matei Candea
Viveiros de Castro 1998;Ingold 2000;Miller 2005 for very different approaches to some
or ali of these themes).
ANT stands out quite markedly from these other approaches, but in trying to specify
in what way it does so,one begins to run into a number of key problems.The first is that,
as suggested above,ANT has been deployed to describe an enormous range of phenomena,
and it is thus diflScult to circumscribe it by its topic or object. Latour alone (or in some
cases with others) has written books on science (1987), technology (1996), modernity
(1993), Paris (1998), politics (2004a), law (2009), religion (2013b) and the varieties of
existence in general (2013a).This eclecticism is widespread amongst actor-nctwork theo-
rists. As John Law — himself a key proponent ofANT - has noted:
Truth and falsehood.Large and Small.Agency and structure. Human and non-human.
Before and after, Knowledge and power. Context and content. Materiality and
sociality. Activity and passivity. In one way or another ali of these divides have been
rubbished in work undertaken in the name of actor—network theory.
(1999:3)
The second difficulty is that the concepts used by actor-network theorists are themselves
constandy shifting, not simply from one author to the next, but even within the work of
single authors. Novice readers will soon be confronted with a bewildering array of terms
and distinctions: actor-networks, quasi-actants, hybrids,immutable mobiles, matters of fact
and matters of concern, intermediaries and mediators, regions, networks, fluids, transla-
tion, trail, alliance, the sociology of translation, the sociology of association as opposed to
the sociology of the social... Conflising and irritating as this may be, this constantly
shifting terminology is, as we shall see below,not a bug but a feature ofANT.It embodies
a general aversion to setting out a stable'framework' or conceptual dogma. For its propo-
nents,to quote Law again:
[AJttempts to convert actor-network theory into a fixed point,a specific series ofclaims,
of rules, a creed, or a territory with fixed attributes also strain to turn it into a single
location ... But this is a nonsense for, to the extent that it is alive, to the extent that it
does work,to the extent to which it is inserted in intellectual practice,this thing we call
actor-network theory also transforms itself.This means that there is no avdo. Only dead
theories and dead practices celebrate their self-identity. Only dead theories and dead
practices hang on to their names,insist upon their perfect reproducrion. Only dead the
ories and dead practices seek to reflect in every detail, the practices which came before.
(1999: 10)
For these reasons,it is in fact easier,as I will do in the rest of this chapter,to identify ANT
by outlining what it is not, rather than what it is. 1 will also be focusing here - again for
simplicity's sake - on one particular version of ANT, namely that proposed by Bruno
Latour.In light ofLaw's statement above, however,the reader will not be surprised to hear
that a number of other authors associated with ANT - Law himself, but also Annemarie
Mol (2002), Michel Callon (1986), Steve Woolgar (1991), Helen Verran (2001),Antoine
Hennion (2015)- produced distincdy different versions or understandings of it.
ANT might seem to be more obviously a contribution to sociology or even to philos-
ophy than to anthropology. In many ways, this is so. Indeed, Mol,a promincnt proponent
Bruno Latour*s anthropology of the modems 21 1
ofANT,has charactcriscd hcr own work as'empirical philosophy'(2002:l).That works as

an apt characterisation ot AN 1 more gcncrally. And yet, the impulse behind ANT was
anthropological In onc kcy scnsc: it restcd on a very particular reading of the anthropo-
logical cominitmcnt to 'niaking the familiar strange'. Bruno Latour outlines this commit-
ment at length in liis now classic book, IVe Hiwc Never Been Modem (1993).There he
proposes that an 'antliropology ofthe modems'is required in order to see the most central
assumptions ofWcstcrn modcrnit>' — notably, ali of the 'divides'enumerated by Law above —
as if from the outside.' l lic counterintuitive pronouncements of ANT — including its
claim that it is not a tlicory - can aU bc secn as an attempt to craft the conceptual language
for such an anthropcdogv'.
I will givc in tiiis cliaptcr tmly onc detailed ethnographic exemplification ofANT,and
this is a slightly paradt^xical one for t\vo reasons. First, because the book is not everyone's
idea ofan ethnography. Sccond,because the term ANT had not in fact been coined at the
time at which the book was written.And yet,this now classic monograph - which is both
one of the first and still arguably one of the most incisive ethnographies of science in
action — first established some of the key principies of what would later be calledANT.
The book is Liibonitory Li/c (l atour and Woolgar 1979):an ethnographic study ofabiology
lab at the Salk institute in La Jolla, California.The next section examines this case study in
some detail, after which the chapter turns to a broader dehneation of ANT,concluding
with a consideration ofsome of the limits of this approach.
The first íntimations of ANT:Laboratory Life

Two elements ofcontext are important in considering Latour andWoolgar's Laboratory Life.
The first is that this book was written at a time when anthropologists were increasin^y
committed to bringing the discipline'back home'(Cole 1977).Latour andWoolgar's study
was thus part of a handful of attempts to bring anthropology'ali the way home'by fbcusing
on the very centres of the production ofWestern power and narratives, such as scientific
laboratórios or Western politiccil institutions and ideologies. Laboratory Ufe was thus part of
a broader move towards putting'the West'itself into an ethnographic perspective.
The second element of context concerns discussions in the sociology and history of
science, to which tliis book made a transformative and criticai contribution.^ While
examining these arguments might seem to take us out of our focus on ANT as a general
'theoretical' resource for anthropologists, niany of the idenrifying features, strengths and
weaknesses of AN'l were developed in this context so it pays to examine them in some
detail.
In the 1960s and 197()s, sociologists and liistorians who studied science were increas-
ingly boldly claiming that scientific facts were 'social constructions', and that the content
of scientific discovcries could be to some extent explained by, or at least correlated to,
factors such as scientists' political interests, social class, gender, cultural imaginations of
'nature' and ideologies more broadly, structural inequalities in the society scientists
belonged to and so on. Even if one remained agnostic about whether a particular body of
scientific knowledgc was true, the fact that it was generally believed to be so was,surely,a
social fact. As sociologist David Bloor put it:'the objectivity ofknowledge resides in its
being the set of acccpted beiiefs of a social group'(1974: 76).
This 'social constructionisni' in science studies drew direcdy on a tradition of anthro
pological analysis of the relationship between knowledge and society,ultimately rooted in
212 Matei Candea
the sociology of knowledge launched by Emile Durkheim at the beginning of the 20th
century (see chapter 1). Bloor again:
Social organizatíon can indeed ensure that a given theory is perceived as true. Evans-
Pritchard showed as much when he examined the way in which Zande society is
organized around the premise that the natural world is replete with the forces of
witchcraft. Philosophers as well as anthropologists have increasingly investigated the
social processes whereby theories are sustained and anomalies absorbed ... Social
organizatíon,then,is the crucial variable determining the perception of the truth and
falsity of any given theory.
(p.76)
This approach led to a focus on the detail and practice of scientific work, to examine
sociologically the day-to-day processes whereby 'theories are sustained and anomahes
absorbed'(p.76).In anthropology,SharonTraweek's ethnography ofAmerican andJapanese
physicists (1988) sought,in this vein,to treat physics as a cultural emanation ofa particular
social context, inherently informed by the socially structured and gendered practices of
the physicists who produced it (for a critique,see Latour 1990).
The first stirrings ofANT emerged within,but also against, this social constructionist
context. Laboratory Life (1979), subtided The Social Constniction of Scientiftc Facts, gave an
account ofbiologists'practices that sought to show how facts were - literally - constructed
in laboratory conditions, through a series of practices of testing, measuring and writing.
The philosophical impUcations were, in one sense, in line with those of the social
constructionist sociology above: facts were not 'discovered', they were made, and the
processes that went into making them were (in part) human social processes and practices.
For instance, the authors looked in detail at the way the language of scientific papers
invokes different leveis of certainty about particular statements - from controversial,
hypothetícal or merely possible statements, to ones solidly grounded through references
to other papers, ali the way to obvious truths that 'everyone knows' and can be stated
without even requiring any reference at ali. Establishing a fact, they argued, is pardy a
struggle to convince readers through the accumulated production of statements tied
together through intertextual citational practices. Facts, examined empirically, are noth-
ing other than these interconnected sets ofstatement and references,inscribed on pieces
of paper.
However,Latour andWoolgar took a distinctive turn away from classic social construc-
tionism in their dose focus on the role machines and artefacts played in this process of
construction.The constructíon of stable scientífic facts - the writing of those papers -
would not be possible, they pointed out, without an extensive array of'things' and non-
human entíties: the mice whose blood can be extracted, the centrifuges that separate the
blood into constituents,the array of machines that allow various other kinds of test to be
done on those constituents, the computers that enable the results to be mapped into
graphs, that in turn can be printed on paper and integrated into artícles in which they
support statements.At each ofthese steps,ideas,questíons and answers are given a material
solidity. Key to this process are the various technical apparatuses that measure and extract
data from biological materiais. Latour and Woolgar describe these as 'inscription devices'
whose role is to'transform pieces of matter into written documents'(1979: 51).The lab as
a whole in this portrayal emerges as a 'system of literary inscription'(p. 52) - a kind of
Bruno Latour's anthrcpology of the modems 213
fàctory in which facts are built through a vcr>' physical, material process of accumiilated
'writing'. Its aiin:
vvas to persuade readers of papers ... that its statements should be accepted as fact.
To this end rats iiad beeii bled and beheaded, frogs had been flayed, chemicals con-
sumed, time spent, careers iiad been made or broken, and inscription devices had
been manufactured and accumulated within the laboratory.
(p.88)
Laboratory Li/e nowiiere invoked the terni ANT.This would come later as a retrospective
label, and one can argue as to whethcr the book wras a work of ANT 'proper'. But a
number ofthe key clenients of the approach were already implied in this early work.I will
now tease four of these out, and show how they were elaborated more formally in later
writángs under the lieading ofANT.I lere we find again that list ofthings that ANT is not
about.The first is a vision of entities as networks of other entiries(whyANT is notabout
'networks' in the usual sense). l he second is a concern with the way action is distributed
between humans and non-iiumans (why ANT is not about 'actors* in the usual sense
either).The third is a genenil account ofANT as a project,that Bruno Latourhas dubbed
*an anthropology of the Modems',and this leads to the fourtli,namely a critique ofclassic
sociological modes of explanation. Togetlier these last two points show whyANT might
claim not to bc a 'tiieory' in tiie usual sense.
No'networks':A material semíotics

Since the 1960s and in some quarters still today, the notion of networks has been a pop
ular alternativo for sociologists seeking to characterise social organisation in ways more
fluid than those allowed by the notion of structure (see chapters 1 and 2).The image of
social actors linked to each other through complex and shifting social networks became a
key figure of the sociological imagination.This is emphatically not the sense in which the
word network is used in AN 1. Io understand the role that term plays in ANT,one has to
start somevehere rather diíferent, namely at the interface between concepts and things.
One of the key efiects of L.atour and Woolgar's descriptions ofscientific work in Labo
ratory Ltfe was to blur the boundary between conceptual and material processes. In classic
philosophy of science, science is frequendy portrayed as a mental activity, a process of
rational enquiry.Arguably,the social constructionist approach to science, with its emphasis
on collective representations and cultural relativity, retained this approach to science as an
essentially mental activity — a question ofthoughts,perspectives,interpretations and symbols.
Latour and Woolgar's account, by contrast, bracketed the question of what happened in
scientists' minds,and focused instead on the material practices ofcutting, mixing,compar-
ing, talking and writing that they observed taking place in the lab. From this perspective,
the scientific papers that issued forth from the lab could no longer be seen as simply a
condensation of abstract thought happening in the minds of scientists (influenced or not
by their'culture' or'collective consciousness'). Rather,papers and the facts they contained
were simply the final stage in the stabilisation of a process that was both conceptual and
material through and through.
Crucially, facts, in this view, are no longer seen as more or less accurate representations
of a 'reality out therc'. They are simultaneously conceptual and material entities that are
214 Matei Candea
produced,and can only continue to exist, within a certain kind of uetwork made ofsocial
practices, technical devices and statements.The question of whether they are true or false
can only be asked within these networks.The authors put the point very clcarly in the
foUowing passage that deserves extended quotation;
Let us consider one particular statement:'somatostatin blocks the releasc of growth

hormones as measured by radioimmunoassay'.If we ask whether this statement works
outside science, the answer is that the statement holds true in every place where the
radioimmunoassay has been reliably set up.This does not imply that the statement
holds true everywhere,even where the radioimmunoassay has not been set up. If one
takes a blood sample ofa hospital patient in order to determine whether or not soma
tostatin lowers the levei ofthe patient's growth hormone,there is no way ofanswering
this question without access to a radioimmunoassay for somatostatin. One can believe
that somatostatin has this efifect and even claim by induction that the statement holds
true absolutely, but this amounts to a belief and a claim, rather than to a proof. Proof
of the statement necessitates the extension of the network in which the radioimmu
noassay is valid, to make part ofthe hospital ward into a laboratory annex in order to
set up the same assay.We are not arguing that somatostatin does not exist, nor that it
does not work,but that it cannotjump outside of the very network ofsocial practice
which makes possible its existence.
(Latour and Woolgar 1979:183)
Facts cannot'jump outside' the networks they exist in. Pushing the point, one might say
that facts are these networks.That insight is borrowed ffom the relational logic ofsemiotics
(see chapter 2),in which the meaning of any term can only be understood because of its
place in a broader network of other terms. Imagine trying to learn a language from a
dictionary:each word is defined by a set ofother words(cow:'a fuUy grown female animal
of a domesticated breed of ox, kept to produce milk or beer).You can look these up in
turn,and you will find they too are defined by a set offurther words (beef:'the flesh of a
cow,buli, or ox, used as food'), and so forth.The meaning of each term is that network of
other terms.
ANT takes that semiotic insight and applies it not only to words or ideas, but also to
material entities in the world (Law 1999:4).^Thus,facts are not simply meanings consist-
ing of a network of other meanings, but rather entities that are simultaneously material
and conceptual (inscriptions ofmeaning on paper) consisting ofa network ofother things,
persons, practices and meanings (ink, paper,ideas, human habits of writing, evidence pro
duced by machines, etc.).
The same could be said, in turn, of the machines and other objects in the lab.just like
the facts they help to construct, these material devices are themselves the effects of con
ceptual and material activities,some ofwhich have taken place elsewhere.A centrifuge,for
instance,is made of machined bits of metal and plastic, to a blueprint designed by techni-
cians, who were themselves applying mechanical principies derived from other scientific
studies, of force, velocity and so forth. In the same way, facts 'constructed' at the Salk
institute (for instance about the effects of hormones) would eventually find their way,for
instance,into medicai technologies. In other words,science and technology flow into and
out of one another. But more profoundly, material and conceptual processes are flip sides
of each other too: machines are stabilised, materialised facts and theories. They in turn
Bruno Latour's anthropology of the modems 215
allow new facts and thcorics to bc stabilised and materialised. A spectrometer or a hor
monal treatmcnt, is, in tbis particular sense, a network of other material and conceptual
entities, in thc samc way tbat a fact is.
Most provocatiwly. this cxtcnds not simply to ideas or to machines, but also to people
themselves. In tiiis vicw/scicntists' <is saentists, are nothing other than networks,each com-
posed of their bodics, of course. habits, abilities and proclivities, but also their CVs (lists of
papers), thc tccliniqucs tiicy havc Icarned, the facts they know, their relatíons to other
experts and ntm-cxpcrts. thc niachincs and lab cquipment they can leverage and so forth.
This — pcrhaps tlic niost countcrintuitivc — extcnsion ofthe nodon ofnetworks to persons
themselves, has bccn inadc icss strange perhaps by technological developments in the
intervening time, such as social media and new techniques ofonÜne visualisation (Latour
et al. 2012). Cônsider tiic l acebook page: that profoundly personal,individual,pardy pub-
lic and pardy intimate, partly honest and pardy contrived, account of who its owner is.
What is it made of, apart from links to other people and things, each of which leads else-
where:friends, family members,photos of events,things once said,music once liked,news
that raised hackles or confirmed opinions? An individual Facebook page is not 'in' that
broader network,it is that nerwork — ali ofit is entirely constítuted by those other entities,
elsewhere. An actor-network theorist would simply add that what is true for that online
facet of your person is true more generally also of: your physical clothes and possessions,
that mark you out as individual by linking you to specific and generic othen elsewhere;
your habits, aversions and desires, that were themselves learned, inherited or produced
wilfuUy by contrast to other persons, ideas and things; and indeed your physical body -
that is relationally constituted by generic material from your parents and their parents
before them,by tiie food you cat, the exercise you do with others and so forth...Ofcourse,
as we shall see beiow, critics have suggested that a number ofcrucial things might be miss-
ing from this radically relational view of human persons.
Hence AN 1' is not about'networks'in the usual sociological sense.Indeed,the distance
between AN1" and thc — as actor-network theorists might see it — bland, monochromatic
sociological vision of'social networks', should now be starkly visible. Actors are not in
networks — they are networks. And these networks are not simply 'social' in the classic
Dukheimian sense (made up ofsocial connections to other human actors-see for instance
chapter 1): they are //cfcm^n/cci/s. Actor-networks assemble together humans,objects,ideas
and materiais of varied and multiple kinds.
No'actors': Actíon is dístríbuted

The counterpart ofthis point is also that it is networks,rather than self-contained,bounded
human actors, who act: action is distributed.A lone naked scientist contemplating a mouse
in a bare room would never, with ali the power of her intellect,be able to produce scien-
tific facts about somatostatin. The distinctive activity of science is possible only through
and with other scientists, machines, benches, scalpels, paper and pens. Ali of these other
entities therefore participate in the activity of the scientist. It is the combined activity of
this network of entities, rather than the naked human individual, that produces the out-
come that is a well-established scientific fact.
Labovatory Ltje thus shows the frrst stirrings of what became the most famous and
counter intuitivo move in AN 1: extending agency beyond the human.In the story ofhow
scientific facts are constructed and stabilised, human scientists (with their culture, social
216 Matei Candea
structures,interests, assumptions,belieís and so forth) emerge as only one part of the pic-
ture.The machines, the objects and materiais, are just as important in the story. Without
the machines' ability to hold things in place, to document,inscribe, map and measure, no
amount of ratáonal discussion and enquiry, no amount of social structure or ideology,
would suffice to bring forth stable facts. But equally,the objects ofstudy - the blood,cells,
chemical elements and so forth - have to behave themselves. It is not always in the scien-
tdsts' power(or even in that oftheir machines) to make those elements do vvhat is required
of them (for a radical exemplification of this point,in which bactéria play a leading role,
see Latour 1988a).What is true of the human scientists is true also of their machines,cells
or facts; insofar as each of these entities can 'act',it is through its relation to other entities
in the network (see Callon [1986] for a famous scallop-based example). If actors are
networks,it foUows that networks are actors.
This vision of networks as actors takes the counterpoint of classic sociological models
of agency in which archetypal agents are imagined as, as it were,'naked' human beings
with their intentions and interests, confronted with, entangled in, or even empowered by,
broader social, cultural, cognitive or political 'structures' (for which sociologists have
designed a number of convenient labels - class, gender, age, culture, etc.). In this classic
vision, human agency is exerted against, within or even through those broader structures,
with endless debates raging about the respective balance and interplay between those two
imponderable quantáties (see chapters 1,2,5 and 8).Andyet the difEculties with this pair
of concepts are well known:considered properly,'structures' are themselves nothing other
than the eflfect ofthe activity ofother persons.As for the agency,intentionality and 'inter
ests' seemingly deeply lodged within individual human actors, they too already seem to
come from elsewhere,fix>m somewhere externai and structural. Successive scholars sought
to resolve this problem by fusing or coUapsing the distinction, for instance through
Bourdieu's notion of habitus (see chapters 5 and 11), or through the study of the social
and discursive contexts that enable (rather than simply limit) particular kinds of reflective
freedom (as in the work of Foucault, see chapter 10). Actor-network theorists, instead,
simply choose to ignore the distinction altogether and look elsewhere: to the objects and
material things that scaffbld our everyday lives.
Your alarm woke you up this morning, because you set it to do so last night, and
because someone somewhere programmed your phone to have an alarm app on it,
because that person works for a company whose market research leads it to expect that
buyers of phones such as yours will expect to find alarm programs on them. One might
of course seek to parse this set of networked actions and expectations into structure and
agency: your compliance with a particular culture of clock-time (see Thompson 1967)?
A neoliberal global order driven by transnational electronics companies whose products
are shaping you into a self-disciplining subject? These are possible readings, of course,but
in trying to tease out where agency splits offfrom structure or individual initiative from
context, they require the invocation of mysterious conceptual entities ('culture','neolib-
eralism' on the one hand;'free will','the self on the other) that take on an active role in
the story, despite being theoretical productions of sociology's (and philosophy's) own
making. By contrast, an actor-network theorist might trace the ways in which your
meaningful, intentional action (your decision to wake up this morning), already comes
mediated and scaffolded by your actions yesterday, by the distinctive propensities,flexibil-
ities and resistances of electronic components put together in a factory in China, by the
shortcuts, the memory and path-dependencies of software written in Califórnia, and by
the actions (sonic intcntional, some thoughtless and rourine) of ali the other humans
involved in those assemblagcs.
The point of AN 1 tlicn, is not chat machines, bactéria or indeed mice are endowed
with a human-like intentionaliry. Rather, the point is once again negative: grand dichot-
omies between human action and non-human passivity are misleading. Initiative and
control, intentionaliry and mechanical repetition, activity and passivity, should rather be
seen as the ends of a spcctrum, with multiple stopping-points in between, because:
there might cxist many metaphysical shades between fuU causality and sheer inexis-
tence. In addition to 'determining' and serving as a 'backdrop for human action*,
things might authori/c,iiUow,afford,encourage,permit,suggest,influence,block,render
possible, forbid, and so on.
(Latour 2005:72)
These kinds of action are just as available to a range of non-human entities as they are to
human beings. By reintegrating these non-human entities into our accounts of human
action, Latour suggests. the false opposition between agency and structure is dissolved.
This approach recasts ciassic sociological visions of power.As the title ofone ofLatour's
papers puts it,'Icchnology is society made durable'(1991).That is to say, the stable and
resilient technological artcfacts that scaftbld our lives are themselves the effect ofstabilised
networks of social actions (the expectations of designers, the skills of builders, etc.). Con-
versely, one might say, technology makes society durable - social bonds, norms,promises,
habits, interests, prejudices, beliefs and expectations (the ciassic panoply for explaining
social stability in sociology) are by themselves a weak kind of ûe. It is our technical
apparatuses (from vvriting or alarm clocks through to iPhones or Facebook) that stiffen
these social patterns and make our behaviour regular and — up to a point — expectable.'*
Or to put it more bluntly, if society seems to have 'structure'it is in no small part because
it is full of the activity of guns, uniforms, passports, credit cards, prison walls, money,
clothes, motorways, borders and the like.
No'theory': ANT as a critique of social theory

Before moving on to our final negative assertion — that ANT is not a theory— let us pause
for a moment to examine some of the criticai objections that have been raised against the
above account. In the main,these follow two key strands.The first attacksANT for its lack
ofconcern with politics and inequality.The second,to which I will return in the conclu-
sion, attacks ANT for its failure to engage ethnographically with what matters to the
(human) participants in the research.
Early instances of the first strand of criticism — that ANT ignores politics - came fixim
criticai sociologists of science of what was known as the Edinburgh school (Shapin 1988;
Sturdy 1991; Bloor 1999) who saw in ANT a refusal to acknowledge the human interests,
social classes or economic forces that sociologists had traditionally used to explain scien-
tific knowledge.lan Macking sums up the difference in perspective between the Edinburgh
School and Latour witli characteristic clarity:
[There is] a vivid contrast between Latour's project and work deriving fix>m the
Edinburgh strong program in the sociology of knowledge. He shares with them
218 Matei Candea
the idea offacts being made,not discovered,but has abandoned any thought that it is
human interests, social classes and economic forces that do the making. He calls ali
that,somewhat disinissively,*interest theory'.By now the (mostly British) sociology of
scientific knowledge scholars suspect that Latour is a dangerous reactionary.This is a
reminder of different narional histories. French intellectuals of a previous generation
simply lived, spoke, breathed Mandsm in a way that was never true in the United
Kingdom.People of Latour's ilk and age have grown past that, while for his contem-
porary British thinkers that is still something to be fascinated by because it has not yet
been fuUy experienced.
(1992:511)
Analogous concerns to those of the Edinburgh School were raised by science studies
scholars writáng in traditions informed by feminism, postcolonialism and queer theory,
who found Latour's work productive but occasionally expressed disconifort about its
perceived lack of interest in inequality (Haraway 1989; Barad 2007).^ Anthropologists,in
dose conversation with these other critiques, complained about the lack of'a larger his-
torical or cultural context' (Martin 1998: 27). The concern in essence turned on the
perceived lack of criticai bite ofANT accounts.To these scholars, critique was the proper
duty ofthe sociological commentator,particularly on such a power-laden subject as Western
science, and critique had to involve some engagement with explanatory or contextualis-
ing frames,some ability to step outside the description itself in order to trace responsibil-
ities, effects and inequalities.^ By refusing to draw on such explanatory resources, at best,
the stories ANT told about networked entities and distributed agency seemed to provide
little beyond a restatement,in abstruse terms,ofa given situation.At worst,ANT's picture
of entities vying for the extension of their networked reach was suspected of a kind of
neoliberal sympathy,'an affinity for demiurgic, agonistically self-constituting entrepre-
neurial selves'(Oppenheim 2007:473).
To these sorts of challenge, Latour responded head-on with a critique of explanation
(1988b) and a critique ofcritique (2004b).In the second edition of Laboratory Li/e (Latour
andWoolgar 1986)-in which,subtly but significantly,the subtitle had been changed from
'The social construction ofscientific facts',to'The construction ofscientific facts'- Latour
and Woolgar had already added a postface that foregrounded an aspect of that book's
account that many readers had not seemed to take sufficient notice of. Laboratory Li/e, they
pointed out, was a reflection on the construction of scientific facts in biology, but it was
also a reflection on the construction ofscientific facts in sociology. Class, interests, gender,
culture or society were tools of the sociologist and anthropologist, and they were con-
structed in much the same way as the pipettes, spectrometers, graphs and sentences used
by the biologists at the Salk institute to stabilise their facts. If one is prepared to examine
the construction of the latter, one ought surely also to examine the construction of the
former.The challenge to sociological explanations of science could not be more direct.
As Callon wrote around the same time:
For [sociologists ofscience] Nature is uncertain but Society is not ... Sometimes the
effect can be so devastating that the reader has the impression of attending a trial of
natural science presided over by a privileged scientific knowledge (sociology) which
has been judged to be indisputable and above criticism.
(1986: 197-198)
Bruno Latour*s anthropology of the modems 219
Latour latcr lianinicred in tlicsc points and expanded them beyond the sociology ofsd-
ence through a rclcntlcss attack on "social constructionism'and'criticai sociology'(2005).
Criticai sociologists, 1 atour argiied. clainied for themselves precisely the kind ofpower to
know the real that thc\- rcfiised to allow other actors might have access to. This held
beyond the realni of the sociology- of science, and Latour excoriated the sociology ofart
or the sociolog>* of belief in inuch the saine terms. Everywhere, he claimed, the criticai
sociologist denics the cxistence and power of those non-human entities that actors are
claiming make them act (molecules in the lab, paintings in the gallery.Godin heaven),and
replaces these non-human powers with explanatory devices of his own construction,
made out of that mysteritnis thing called 'the social'.'
This brings us finally tt> the sense in which ANT might claim not to be a theory.Theory
in this AN r view is imagined as a set of stable conceptual resources that can be used to
frame, conte.xtualise and explain any given situation; a framework that already includes
pre-loaded assumptions about what the relevant categories and distinctions are (class,gender,
etc.), what the likely pn^blems and tensions will turn out to be (domination, false con-
sciousness, inequalirv-, silencing) and who the cast of likely characters is, including likely
suspects; a framework that already includes a set of assumptions about the relative power
and scale of these actors (individuais, groups, corporations, etc.). If that is what theory is,
then ANT,its proponents claim, is quite the opposite. Litde more than a set of negative
injunctions that a researcher ought to bear in mind upon setting off to give an account of
a particular topic: don't assume you know who or what is acting, what the'kinds'ofentity
in presence are going ttí be and what their relative power is. Starting from this method-
ological injunction to keep the world'flat',an actor-network theorist should painstakingly
'trace' the relations as they appear to him or her in the course ofthe research.This in turn
explains the profusion ot terms and distinctions with which this chapter began. This
bewildering profusion is the mark of a particular way of thinking about concepts: not as
the building blocks of a progressively growing theoretical edifice,but as a kind oftheoret-
ical scaffolding that will enable a description ofa particular case and can be set aside once
that description is complete."Description' using ad hoc terminology thus takes the place
of'explanation' in view of an established theoretical framework. It is in this sense that
ANT is characteristic of what I have described in the introduction as a'heuristic turn'in
social science (see chapter 14 for a further discussion of heuristics).
So far, it might sound like Latour's response to those who accuseANT of being apoliti-
cal or acritical is merely to relinquish critique in favour ofa kind ofsuperior objectivity or
more careful empiricism. And surely critics would be right to respond that there is no rea-
son to assume that the playing field in any given situation will be levei-so why should we
assume methodologiciUly that it is? To this explicidy political rejoinder one might add two
methodological ones. l irst, that the methodological injunction outlined above is surely
impossible - who can really claim to approach a situation without any presuppositions?
And second,that the proposcd'method' would seem to invite the relatively absurd result of
an endless description of heterogeneous chains of co-actmty.As Steve Shapin put it in an
early critique ofANT:'there is litde to be said from widiin a seamless web'(1988:547).
But Latour's final — and boldest — rejoinder against his critics is to claim that ANT is in
fact even more political and more engaged than criticai sociology. Indeed,Latour claims,
criticai sociology rnay rile against the status quo, make accusatory gestures and point to
collective and individual injustices and responsibilities. By contrast,the very same logic of
material—semiotic 'production' of facts as real entities in the world, that Latour and
220 Matei Candea
Woolgar long ago described for scientists at the Salk institute, applies to the construction
ofANT accounts.ANT accounts are notpresented as more or less correct representations
cr interpretations,or denunciarions or critiques ofa situation. Rather,they are new things
in the world - empirical interventions on their readers: they reconfigure relationships and
entitíes in such a way as to make new ways ofseeing and new ways of being possible.ANT
should thus be seen,not as a set of descriptíons, but as a particular type of performative or
'ontological politics'(Mol 1999). In these latter (and later) developments, one might see
the partial integration into ANT of some of the critiques and perspectives coming from
the tradition offeminist technoscience (Haraway 1989;Stengers 2000).
Conclusíon:On taking seríousiy

I wrote previously that there were two main strands to the critiques of ANT,the first of
which I have now examined at some length.The second is more distincdy anthropologi-
cal, and it has been adumbrated above.This is the sense that ANT accounts tend to suffer
from a certain kind ofethnographic déficit. Somewhat unkindly, but not entirely unfairly,
one might characterise many ANT accounts as tacking back and forth between very dose -
and occasionally tedious - descriptions of practice and technical detail, and some fairly
far-reaching philosophical conclusions, often with litde of what is conventionally known
as sociology or history in between. More specifically, a number of anthropologists have
noted that ANT accounts are relarively unconcerned with the perspectives and subjectiv-
ities of scientists at work (Rabinow 1996). Beyond science,ANT's account of action dis-
tributed seamlessly across humans and non-humans has been critiqued for evacuating that
crucial aspect of meaningful human life, namely the way in which we ascribe responsibility
to each other (Laidlaw 2014).
This is the case, despite the frequent claim that ANT is better than criticai sociology at
taking into account those entities that truly matter to its subjects ofstudy(God to believers,
facts to scientists, artworks to aesthetes, etc.), and despite the injunction to aspiring
actor-network theorists that their prime commitment should be to 'follow the actors'.
Indeed, this is the case constitutively, I would argue, because of the nature of the project
of an 'anthropology of the modems'itself.
There is, ofcourse,the basic problem ofidentifying,for empirical purposes,'the mod
ems'in the first place (see note 1). In practice, ANT tends to bracket that problem by
seeing modernity as unlocated and pervasive,a matter of global assemblages (Collier and
Ong 2005),that contrasts with anthropologists'traditional concern with identifying par
ticular contexts of knowledge and practice (Tsing 2010). To some, doing away with
contexts in this way will seem a refreshing move.But it also does away with a particular
conceptual device central to many anthropological arguments; namely that of presenting
an alternative perspective or conceptual possibility as a way to challenge our own
assumptions - a move most recendy reinvented by the so-called 'ontological turn'(see
chapter 14).
Another way of putting it is that in the'anthropology of the modems',as conceived by
ANT,the perspective that is being challenged is also the perspective of those being studied.
From the very outset,ANT was committed to producing an account that did not replicate
or take for granted the core divisions that are so often invoked in the kinds of everyday
Western settings in which ANT descriptions often take place.This concern was explicidy
articulated as early as Laboratory Life in the worry about'going native'and the concern not
to 'reiterate tlie accounts of scicntists themselves' (Latour and Woolgar 1979: 39, 44).
In Latour s work,iii particular, this conccrn bccame increasingiy cast as a desire not merely
to understand 'thc tiuídcrns' but to challenge and reform them,to give them (us?) a dif-
ferent account of thcni(our?)selvcs (Candea 2016). Whether this is still a recognisably
anthropological projcct is a niattcr of perspective.
Notes
1 The whoie poiiit of 1 .itour's book w.is to challenge the classic narrative ofmodernity and the
'great divide'(I atour 11), which is often imagined to exist between'us,the modems'and
'others'. And yct in a tuinibcr of\va\s,that book has also been seen as reinstatíng that distinction
(for a sophisticated critique along those lines. see Strathern 1999).
2 For a broader outiine of relation between Science andTechnology Studies and anthropology,see
Candea (2017).
3 In this and other ways,AN i owes more tlian a passing debt to the work ofMichel Foucault (see
chapter 10).
4 For an intriguing comparison between human social life (scaffolded by muldple objects) and
primate social lite (comparatively free of technology),see Stmm and Latour (1987).
5 *[0]ne can't simply bracket (or ignore) certain issues without taking responsibility for the
constitutive elTects of these exclusions ... I want to emphasize in the strongest terms possible
that it woiild be a mistake to think that the main point is simply a questíon of whether or not
gender, race, sexuality and other variables are included in one's analysis.The issue is not sim
ply a matter of inclusion. l he main point has to do with power. How is power understood?
How are the social and the political theorized? Some science studies researchers are endorsing
Bruno Latour's proposal for a new parliamentary governmental structure that invites non-
humans as well as humans, but what,if anything,does this proposal do to address the kinds of
concerns that feminist, queer, postcolonial, (post-)Marxist, and critícal race theorists and
activists have brought to the table? ... their presence has barely been acknowledged'(Barad
2007: 58).
6 A concern very similar to that raised against Foucault by some Marxist writers. Here again, we
see the family resemblance between Foucault's work and that ofANT.
7 This commitment to 'taking seriously' what matters to the actors, is another sense in which
ANT arguments show an athnity with those of the ontological turn (see chapter 14).As I point
out in the introduction, however, there are a number of important discrepancies between the
two approaches.
Bíblíography
Abu El-Haj, Nadia 1998. franslating truths: Nationalism, the practice of archaeology and the
remaking ofpast and present in contemporary Jerusalém. y4wimr<i« Etlmologist 25 (2): 166-188.
Barad, Karen Michellc 2007. Meetiug the Umverse Halfimy: Quaiitum Physics and the Entangkment of
Matter and Meaniug. Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
Bloor,David 1974. Essay review: Popper's mystificatíon ofobjectíve knowledge.Science Studies 4(1);
65-76.
1999. Anti-Latour. Studies in History and Philosophy ofScience 30 (1):81—112.
Callon, Michel 1986.Some elements ofa sociology oftranslation:Domestication ofthe scallops and
the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In John Law (ed.), Power, Action and BcliefA New Sociology of
Knowledge? I.ondon: Routiedge Kegan Paul.
Candea, Matei 2008. Fire and identity as matters of concern in Corsia. AtUltropologicalTheory 8 (2):
201-216.
2013. Objects made out of action. In P. Harvey (ed.), Objects and Materiais Companion.
London: Routiedge.
222 Matei Candea
2016.We have never been pluralist: On lateral and frontal comparisons in the ontological
turn. In Pierre Charbonnier, Gildas Salmon and Pierre Skafísh (eds.), Comparative Metaphysics:
Ontology afierAnthropology. London;Rowman & Litdefíeld.
2017. Science. In Felix Stein, Sian Lazar, Matei Candea, Hildegard Diemberger, Joel
Robbins,Andrew Sanchez and Rupert Stasch (eds.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia ofAtithropology.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.
anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/science.
Cole, John 1977. Anthropology comes part way home: Community studies in Europe. Atniual
Reuiew ofAnthropology 6:349—378.
Collier, Stephen J. and Aihwa Ong (eds.) 2005. Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as
Anthropological Problenis. London:Blackwell.
Gell,Alfred \99S.An and Agency:An Anthropological Theory. Oxford,Oxford University Press.
Hacking,lan 1992. Revie\v: Science in action. Philosophy of Science 59 (3):510-512.
Haraway,Donna Jeanne 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Natnre in the World of Modem Science.
London: Routledge.
Helmreich,Steíàn 2009.Alien Ocean:Anthropological ld}yages in Microbial Seas. Berkeley,CA:University
of Califórnia Press.
Hennion,Antoine 2015. The Passionfor Music:A Sociology of Mediation. London: Routledge.
Houdart,Sophie 2008. La cour des miracles: Ethnologie d'un laboratoire japonais. Paris: CNRS.
Ingold,Tim 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling & Skill. London
and NewYork,NY:Routledge.
Kaplan, Martha, and John Kelly 1999. On discourse and power: 'Cults' and 'orientais' in Fiji.
American Ethnologist 26 (4): 843-863.
Laidlaw,James 2014. The Subject of Virtue: An Anthropology of Ethics and Freedom. Nevv York, NY;
Latour, Bruno 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
1988a. The Pasteurization ofFrance. Cambridge, MA;Harvard University Press.
1988b.The politics of explanation; An alternative. In Steve Woolgar (ed.), Knowledge and
Rejlexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology ofKnowledge, London: Sage.
1990. Postmodern? No simply amodern;Steps towards an anthropology of science. Studies
in History and Philosophy ofSciettce 21 (1): 145-171.
1991.Technology is society made durable.In J. Law (ed.), Technology is Society Made Diirable.
Vol.A Sociology ofMonsters: Essays in Power,Technology and Domination. London: Routledge.
1993. We Have Never Been Modem.London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
1996. Araniis, Or,The Love ofTechnology. Cambridge, MA:I-Iarvard University Press.
1998. Paris ville invisible. Paris: Institut Synthélabo.
1999. On recalling ANT. The Sociological Review 47 (SI): 15-25.
2000.On the partial existence ofexisting and nonexisting objects. In Lorraine Daston (ed.).
Biographies ofSaentific Objects, Chicago,IL: Chicago University Press.
2004a. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
2004b. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern.
Criticai Inquiry 30:225-248.
2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
2009. The MakingofLaw.An Ethnography ofthe Conseil D'Etat. Revised edition. Cambridge
and Malden, MA:Polity Press.
2013a. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence:An Anthropology of the Modems. Cambridge, MA:
2013b. Rejoicing: Gr the Torments ofReligious Speech, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Latour, Bruno, lâblo jonson. Ibnunaso Venrurini, Sébastian Grauwin, and Dominique BouUier
2012.'Thc wholo is .ilways snialler than its parts' —A digital test of Gabriel Tardes'Monads. The
British Jourihil of Socioloi^y 63 (4): 59(.>-615.
Lacour, Bruno, and Sto\ c NX cmlgar 1979. Liiboratory U/e: The Social Constructíon of Sáentijic Facts.
Beverly I lills, (<'.A and I ondon: Sago Publicacions.
1986. Liihonitory Lije:'lhe (ôtistrtuiiou of Scientific Facts, edited by Jonas Salk. 2nd ediáon.
Princeton, NJ: Princoton Univorsirs" Pre.is.
Law,John 1999. Aftor AN 1 ; Côniplexirs; naniing, and topology. In John Hassard and John Law
(eds.), Actor Nettoorh 'Iheory iitul After. Oxford and Malden, MA:Blackwell/Sociological Review.
Marrin. Emily 1998. Anthropolog\' and thc cultural study of science. Sdetice, Teclmology, & Human
Vahies 23 (1,Spccial Issue:Anthropological Approaches in Science andTechnology Studies):24-44.
Miller, Daniel 2005. Moteruiíity. Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
Mol.Annemaric 1999. C^ntological politics.A word and some questíons.In John Law (ed.), Ofito/og-
icai Politics. A IIórd iitui Some Qiiestions,Actor KetworkTheory aiida/ter. OÔTáiBhckwéú.
2002. lhe liody Multiple: Ontolo^y in Medica! Practice. London:Duke University Press.
Oppenheim,R.2()(>7.Actor-nctwork theor^- and anthropology after science,technology,and society,
Anthropohîcariheory 1 (4): 471-493.
Rabinow,Paul 1996..\/<íJL'í//v; PC:R:A Stor)' ofBiotechnology. Chicago,IL: University ofChicago Press,
Shapin, Steven 1988. Review: Pollowing scientists around. Soaal Studies ofSdeuce 18 (3): 533—550,
Stengers, I. 2000. The luveutiou of Modem Science. Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.
Strathern, Marilyn 1988. The Cender of the Cift: Problems tuith Women and Problenis with Society in
Melanesia. I.ondon: University- of Califórnia Press.
1999. Property, Snbstance and Hffect:Anthropological Essays on Persons aHd77im^s.LondoniThe
Athlone Press.
Strum, SS, and B l.atour 1987. Redefining the social link: From baboons to humans. Social Scieiue
Information 26 (4): 783.
Sturdy, Steve 1991. líssay review: The germs of a new Enlightenment. Studies in the History and
Philosophy of Science 22 (1): 163-173.
Thompson, E.P. 1967.Time, work-discipline,and industrial capitalism. Past & Present 38:56—97,
Travveek, S. 1988. Beanuimes and lifetimes:The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA:
Tsing, Anna 2010. Worlding the Matsutake diaspora, Or, Can actor-network-theory experiment
with holisníf In lòn Otto (ed.), Experinients in HolisníiTheory and Practice in Conteinporary Anthro-
pology. Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.
Verran, Helen 2001. Science and an African Logic. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo 1998. Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism.JoMnw/ cfthe
Royal Anthropological Institnte 4 (3): 469-488.
Woolgar, S. 1991. Configuring the user:The case of usability trials. In John Law (ed.), Configuring
the User.The Gase of Usability lrials,A sociology of nwnsters. London: Routledge.
Zaloom, Caitlin 2003. Ambiguous numbers:Trading technologies and interpretarion in financial
markets. Anierican Ethnologist 30 (May): 258—272.
Chapter 14
The ontological turn

School or style?
Paolo Heywood
Introduction
If there is a word in the contemporary anthropological lexicon that is almost guaranteed

to provoke a reaction ofsome form - whether positive or negative — in iisteners and readers,
that word is 'ontology'.The movement to which it has become attached has generated
reviews of review articles (Pedersen 2012),stimulated a motion in the Group for Debates
on Anthropological Theory (Carrithers et al. 2010), been hailed as the basis of a new pol-
itics (Holbraad, Pedersen and Viveiros de Castro 2014) and also been challenged as the
bastion of an old one (Bessire and Bond 2014; Graeber 2015). Articles with the word in
their title often appear near the top of Hsts of most popular downloaded works in a num-
ber ofprominentjournals,but a great many ofthose articles are criticai in tone,and its use
in academic discussions is capable of causing even tolerant eyes to roU. No doubt future
readers will find such depth of feeling diflScult to imagine, as we might find it hard to
beheve that many ofthe other theoretical movements in this book could have once occa-
sioned similar passions (see chapter 1).
Invocations of an 'ontological turn'in anthropology usually refer to a body of work -
on disparate ethnographic contexts, and sometimes with difíering purposes - that has
emerged over the last decade or so in the wake of the publication of an edited volume
entitled Tliinking Througft Tltings (2006). Its most prominent proponents are Eduardo
Viveiros de Castro, Martin Holbraad and Morten Pedersen (e.g. Holbraad, Petersen and
Viveiros de Castro 2014; Holbraad and Petersen 2017), but a list of recent works influ-
enced by it in some way or another would be extensive (for an example ofsuch a list see
Holbraad and Pedersen 2017: 8), and its roots in anthropology go back much further.
Equally, it is an on-going phenomenon, and new and significant contributions to it are
currently emerging on a regular basis (e.g. Holbraad and Pedersen 2017). It is also a com-
plex phenomenon,and summing it up in a few lines - even in a chapter - is no easy task,
but a few ofits key features include:
1 A rejection of the concept of'culture' in the Geertzian sense (see chapter 8) as a

symbolic or ideational phenomenon,and as an explanatory concept in anthropology.
2 A related rejection ofthe distinction between the symbolic and the material and a call
for closer attention to the latter.
3 The idea that anthropological analysis should depart ffom, not explain away, the
sometimes strange and unsettling concepts we find in the field.
The ontological turn: School or style? 225
One of thc things 1 will aiiii to suggest in chis chapter is that there is an important and
interesting dirtcrcncc oftorni bccwccn thc'ontological turn'and a number ofthe'schools'
covered in the otiicr chaptcrs of tiiis book. My aim in doing so is notto make a histórica]
point — and indced I havc no doubt that niorc capable scholars than I ofstructurahsm (see
chapter 2), say, or interpretivisin (see chapter 8), might dispute this difference — but to
make an analytical one. i hat point reg-ards the nature and purpose ofanalysis in anthro-
pology more broadly: in otiier words, of anthropological theory.
Ontoiogy, as philosopher Willard Quine once put it, roughly speaking, means what
there is, as opposed to epistemology, that refers to our knowledge of what there is (1948).
But in spite of tiiese deeply metaphysical connotarions ofits name,the'ontological turn'
does not, in fact, claim to be a theory about the world and what is in it. Instead, its
proponents — or at least many ofthem (Henare et al. 2006:5;Pedersen2012;Holbraadand
Pedersen 2017) — gcí to some considerable lengths to argue that what they are doing is
outlining a methoii, or a heuristic (not unlike actor-network theory, see chapter 13).
In other words,and some\\'hat unusually, ali that ink and excitement is alleged to concern
not claims about thc nature of the world, but arguments about how we should usefully
approach what we encounter in the field.
So the very word 'ontoiogy' is somewhat misleading. Its use in anthropology is usually
not about stating something fundamental about the nature of being or existence, in the
sense in which philosophers often use it (e.g. Quine 1948; see also Heywood 2012;
Graeber 2015), although it is also a convenient antonym for the kind ofepistemological*
or*representationalist' anthropology from which the ontological turn seeks to move us,as
I discuss below. Instead of being a theory,a picture ofthe world,it is a tool,like a hammer,
to borrow a favourite phenomcnological metaphor,wielded — one assumes — with specific
aims in mind.
So whilst the majority ot this chapter will be occupied with outlining a brief overview
ofrecent discussions of ontoiogy in anthropology and debates over its use and value,it will
also aim to draw attention precisely to the quesrion ofaims — the aims of anthropological
analysis. For that question is one the language of heuristics causes to arise: to say that
something is useful lacks meaning without reference to what purpose it is alleged to be
useflil for (for a much more sustained engagement with heuristics,see Candea 2016).
A number of such purposcs spring to mind; good description; conceptual innovation;
political change.Yet agreement about their fittingness for anthropology is by no means
universal, and in fact this is so cven amongst advocates of the use of ontoiogy, some of
whom seem,for example,to favour politics, and others intellectual creativity (e.g.Viveiros
de Castro 2004; Holbraad 2017).
Needless to say, I will not attempt to propose such a purpose here. I hope merely that
one of the questions this chapter gives rise to is what it means to think in terms of heu
ristics and purposes, rather than theories; in terms of styles or approaches, rather than
schools. What I will suggest in the chapter's concluding sections is that the language of
heuristics can often have the effect of closing down,rather than opening up, discussion
and debate. It can bc deployed as a gcneric response to criticai reflections on the validity
or otherwise of a conceptual framework: so, for example, if one disagrees with the idea
that there is no serious distinction between humans and non-humans, one can be told
simply that the objection is wrongheaded,for that idea is not actually a claim about how
things are, but a way of thinking that might or rmght not produce useful results.Whether
or not such a distinction actually exists is immaterial.
226 Paolo Heywood
This form of argument is useflil in foreclosing what are alleged to be fruitless discus-
sions ofthe validity or otherwise ofparticular positions, but it should also be so in opening
up discussions of utility itself. Even if I grant that your stance on the distinction between
humans and non-humans is not a representation of the world but a tool for intervening
upon it, I may yet disagree with the purpose ofyour intervention, or its results.
Dlfferent begínníngs
Difference,or-in its own preferred vocabulary- alterity, is the basic starting point for the
ontological turn.This might seem an odd focus for an anthropological movement that
emerged in the wake of Writing Cultme (see chapter 10), and its critique of orientalist
exoticism. Writing Cultme stimulated much suspicion towards anything in anthropological
writing that smacked of'othering' our interlocutors, or seemed to focus on striking or
surprising aspects of their thought or culture (some have directed a very similar critique
at the ontological turn itself- e.g. Bessire and Bond 2014). For related reasons, it also
evinced a fundamental scepticism about anthropological description itself- about the act
of'writing culture'.But whilst the ontological turn is in many ways responding to a set of
questions that are similar to those Writing Culture addressed, it does so by building on a
corpus ofliterature that raised those questions around the same time,but in an orthogonal
manner. Key anthropological sources of inspiration of the turn - Roy Wagner, Eduardo
Viveiros de Castro and Marilyn Strathern - were and remain eminently concerned with
the politics of anthropological representation.Yet their response to our apparent inability
adequately to represent others without imposing upon them our own frameworks of
analysis was not to give up on difference but to revolutionise the ways in which we might
think about difference itself.
These thinkers had a fundamental impact on the ways in which the ontological turn -
and contemporary anthropology more broadly - conceptualises the articulation of differ
ence through the opposition between nature and culture.Although it is not unusual to hear
anthropologists of a variety of schools claim that that opposition should be or has been
abandoned, thinkers such as Strathern, Wagner and Viveiros de Castro ali demonstrated
not only that the nature/culture distinction underpins the basis of the anthropological
project, claims to the contrary notwithstanding, but also some ways in which it might
genuinely be reconceptualised.
Take a comparatively minor example from Strathern's opus, that readers will have
already encountered in chapter 12: Strathern's chapter in Nature, Culture, Gender, which
she edited alongside Carol MacCormack (Strathern 1980). She points out not only that
Hageners do not possess concepts of nature and culture that map onto ours, but that the
nearest concepts that approach nature and culture are not related to one another through
the same dynamic of domination (for a more detailed discussion, see chapter 12).
On the surface that might appear simply another instance of the standard anthropolog
ical manoeuvre of relativising something we take for granted - in this case, the nature/
culture distinction and its relarionship to maleness and femaleness,and this was indeed the
role it played in relation to feminist anthropology.But the implications go beyond this. Por
the very basis ofthat relativising manoeuvre is the nature/culture distinction.Without that
distinction, it becomes impossible to say, as we do as a consequence of almost every other
such relativising move,that'in their culture there is no X'.This puts us in something of a
double bind: for many anthropologists, the point of the relativising manoeuvre is to
parochialisc our assuniptions about the ways tliings are, and to show that they are other-
wise elsevvhere in the world,in other cultures; but here we have parochialised the concept
ofculturc, and tliiis tliat nianocu\Te itsclf. If we simply assume they are wrong in an effort
to retain the distinction as the basis of our relativism, we seem to betray its purpose; but
we cannot treat the distinc tion as yet another object to be relativised, precisely because it
is the basis for ali of our cíther relativisms. Strathern, in other words, is overturning the
fundamental basis upc^n which we articulate difference: nature remains the same, whilst
culture varies. Strathern s contributions to debates on these topics continue today, but
even this simple example should suffice to make clear how important they have been.
Viveiros de C lastre:) s work on Amazonian conceptions of difference makes a similar
point and has had a similarly significant effect on the ontological turn, and indeed he
continues tc^ cc^ntribute to key anthropological debates surrounding these issues (e.g.
1998; 2003; 2004; 2014).'Western' cosmologies, according to Viveiros de Castro's model,
conceive of the relation between nature and culture as involving natural similarity and
cultural diversity. So, we think of ourselves as'humans'because we share the same (natural)
bodies as one another, even though we may think and bebeve a range of different (cul
tural) things. Likewise, we ali share the same (natural) world, but we have various and
sometimes conflicting (cultural) ideas about it. Perspectivist Amerindians, on the other
hand, conceive of ali persons (including a number of cosmologically significant animais
and objects) as possessing the same human culture, or vision of the world:jaguars,in the
classic example,soe themselves as human,their paws as hands,the blood they drink as beer,
and so on. l he difference lies in what they perceive to be these things,and the bodies that
do the perceiving: if 1 have a human body I will see the same things that you see when
you see beer, houses and rice; if I have the body ofa jaguar,on the other hand,I will not.
Furthermore, bodies can be exchanged in certain kinds of contexts, much as we talk of
exchanging points of view or ideas. In other words,difference is located in'nature',rather
than in 'culture'. 1 Icnce his descriptions ofAmerindian perspecrivismas'multinaturalism*,
rather than 'multiculturalism'.This also evokes the same difference ofdifferences as Strath
ern,and indeed pcíints to the distinction between 'epistemological' anthropology and the
ontological turn. l he former would interest itself in different ideas about or views upon
the world, whilst taking the meaning of'world'for granted; the latter, on the other hand,
raises the question of what 'world' or 'nature' mean for the people involved. Again, the
twist comes in the implicatit^ns this cosmology has for its own anthropological descrip-
tion: as in the case of the example from Strathern, the epistemological — or ontological,as
it will become — ciuestic^n here is how to account for this difference itself without recourse
to the very notion ofculture that it undermines.We cannot say'in their culture,difference
is natural' without already trumping their understanding ofdifference ('natural') with our
own ('cultural').
As should by now be clear, these thinkers — and others like them such as Roy Wagner
(1975) — are dealing, in particular ways, with the same 'crisis of representation' to which
Writing Culture responded by urging anthropology - at least in its occasionally extreme
rhetorical varieties - to abandon the project of representation altogether in favour of a
focus on 'writing' and the fictions it produces. Rather than take this path, however,they
led their anthropological heirs down a diflerent one:when confronted with the unsustain-
ability ofthe divide between representation and reality, epistemology and ontology,nature
and culturc, that underpinncd much anthropological thinking before them, instead of
washing their hands of both, they reconfigured their understandings of them until the
228 Paolo Heywood
divide was no more. Moreover, they often did so by drawing on the very ethnographic
material they were seeking to anaiyse.In other words,their arguments instantiatcd them-
selves in a manner that has now become characteristic of ontological anthropology: the
contents of their arguments are focused on collapsing the difference between representa-
tion and that which is represented; but the form that these arguments take is an example
of precisely that coUapse, as it makes use of ethnography in order to modify theory, thus
producing'things'that are a mixture ofboth concepts and objects.So,for example,Viveiros
de Castro's description of perspectívism challenges our notions of cultural representation;
but,precisely in so doing,the argument itself becomes more than a cultural representation,
more than description. Hence the tide of the edited volume that in many ways inaugu-
rated anthropology's ontological turn: Thinking Tlirougli Tlihigs, the aim of which was *to
treat meaning and thing as an identity'(2006:3).
Ontology,epístemology or both?
HopefuUy,even on the basis ofthis briefsummary ofsome ofits most important anteced-
ents,it should already be clear that the word'ontology'is not - at least not in the obvious
sense — being employed here in order to point to some deeper levei of reality than that
with which anthropology had previously occupied itself. Discussions of'being'or'multiple
worlds' may lead those with even a passing familiarity with philosophy to assume that the
ontological turn is making some quite serious and metaphysical claims about the nature
of reality. I will return to this point when discussing criticai perspectives on the turn, but
for the sake of avoiding confusion firom the outset, it is worth making clear that, like its
progenitors, the ontological tum is aiming to collapse distinctions between ontology and
epistemology,nature and culture,not to refocus anthropology on a neglected side of those
distinctions.The word'ontology'does serve to distinguish this sort of approach from what
advocates of the turn would call'epistemological'approaches, that were previously domi-
nant, but not because they wish to dispense with epistemology in favour of ontology.
To make the same point in a more banal fashion: none of the most significant advocates
of the ontological turn are suggesting that Amazonians or Melanesians somehow live in
different universes to ourselves, let alone that they belong to different natural species;
neither are they claiming that our condition is one of universal solipsism,in which differ-
ences between people and peoples are só insuperable as to prevent any kind of communi-
cation or understanding, or that boundaries between things we used to call 'cultures' but
now should call'ontologies' are somewhere out there in the world.
This brings us to the question of heuristics, for what the ontological turn proposes,
rather than being a metaphysics,is a method.This,incidentally,is a useful point ofcontrast
between the approaches I have so far been describing and that of another prominent
anthropologist often associated with the ontological turn,Philippe Descola. His work (e.g.
2013), like that ofWagner, Strathern and Viveiros de Castro, is targeted at unsettling the
nature/culture binary,and indeed he describes a set ofethnographic materiais very similar
to that ofViveiros de Castro under the rubric of'animism'. In 'naturalist' cosmologies
('Western' cosmologies, broadly speaking), according to his modcl,'exteriority'(boáes,
effectively) is conrinuous,whilst'interiority'(minds) is discontinuous. In the case ofanimism,
exteriority is discontinuous whilst interiority is continuous. He also adds two further
types:'totemism',in which both are continuous,and'analogism'in which neither are.The
reason I treat this example only too briefly though, is that for Descola, whilst these
The ontological turn: School or styie? 229
categorisations avoid chc naturc/culturc binary as aii explanatory basis, they nevertheless
remain categorisations (or 'rs pes', as Bruno Latour puts it in a 2009 review ofa debate
between Descola and Viveiros de Castro); whereas for the thinkers we are primarily
concerned with in rhis ciiapter the purpose of their descriptions (remember they are
heuristics, with purpcíscs) is to elTect some forin of aiteration to our conceptual schema.
Rather than being aboiit extending our capacity to classify or typologise different cultures,
they are concerned with siiowing how some differences can undermine the whole clas-
sificatory edifice of culture itself.
For again, the point is not to substitute one theory for another,but to allow the encoun-
ter between ethnograpiiy and theory itseif to generate new forms of analysis. Deciding
m admtice that representation and reality are distinct precludes that possibUity.The things
being generated by tiiis method, whether one caiis them ontologies or not,are aiways the
products of very spccific encounters with difference and alterity (Henare et ai. 2006;
Holbraad and Pedersen 2009; Pedersen 2012). They occur not simply by default when
doing ethnography, or because we have crossed some invisible ontological barrier, but on
occasions when the conceptual repertoire we have at our disposal is obviously unable
adequately to account for a particular phenomenon.
What exactly is meant by Tmable to account for'is not aiways completely clear,though
it might be helpfully thought of as entailing a mixture of pohtical nüsrepresentation à Ia
Marxist false consciousness ('they don't really understand what they're doing'—see chapter 8)
and explanatory failurc ('it's impossible to understand the meaning of this phenomenon
without recourse to some externai, anthropological concept'). An oft-cited example of
such failure of accounting is the deployment of the word'beÜef(e.g. Henare et ai.2006:5;
Holbraad 2012: 27). Since Needham first critiqued the concept (1972), anthropologists
have pointed out that beliet as it is used in anthropology is effectively a synonym for error:
'it is only the unbelicver who believes that the believer beheves',as Pouillon puts it(1993:26).
To refer to something as a belief is to oppose it to knowledge,that we the anthropologist
possess, and also simply to recast it in our own terms, rather than to explain it.The Nuer
may 'belicve' that kwoth are spirits, and they are entided to do so, but in describing this as
a'belief' we are implicitly asserting our knowledge that this is not the case,not to mentíon
mis-describing the Nuer, who do not'believe'that kwoth are spirits, they know Úiem to be
so and would not recognise or understand our descriprion of it as a 'behef. Note the
similarity of this problem to the Hagen or Amazonian cases: how do we describe a phe
nomenon when it appears to undermine the basis ofour descriprion, without making the
phenomenon appear illusory or mistaken? The point that advocates of the ontological
turn make is that situations like this — in which it appears that we cannot make sense of
an indigenous phenomenon without recourse to describing it as false — are evidence ofa
failure of our conceptual repertoire (e.g.Wastell 2006:87; Holbraad 2012:72).
It is such situations that constitute encounters with alterity and with which the onto
logical turn is primarily concerned. Hence,the opening up of questions of ontology is a
contextual artefact of this encounter, not a feature of the world out there.
An excellent example of how this process works is provided by Marrin Holbraad (2009;
2012), one of the editors of l liiukiug Through Things, and a major force behind the onto
logical turn.
The ethnographic problem Holbraad is faced with is as follows: Cuban diviners claim
that the verdicts they deliver to clients are indubitable.That is, divinatory statements ofthe
kind 'you are bewitched' cannot be false and are not open to doubt.To the scepric who
230 Paolo Heywood
points out that people in Cuba and elsewhere often do,in point of fact, doubt the truth
of divinatory verdicts, Holbraad elegandy responds that what they doubt is not the truth
of the verdict but its divinatory nature: accepting the claim of practitioners that their
verdicts are indubitable means accepting it as an analytic statement true by its own virtue,
because doing anything else is already a denial of the claim.
Clearly however,as Holbraad goes on to show,a statement such as'you are bewitched'
does not sound like an indubitable truth to us:I may be bewitched and the statement may
be true,but I may equally not be bewitched (2012:71).In fact,'yo" are bewitched'appears
to share ali the characteristics of a regular representational statement of fact: its truth
depends on certain facts about the world.Regular statements offact are,ofcourse,by their
nature open to doubt:the facts may be one way,or they may be the other.Thus the problem:
divinatory truths are indubitable,and at the same time appear to represent a certain state
of aflfairs in the world,thus laying themselves open to doubt.
The failure ofanalysis, therefore - presuming that this logical absurdity is indeed a failure -
must rest with one or other ofthose facets of divinatory truth. Given the earlier point that
not to accept fuUy the indubitable nature of verdicts logically entails reducing them to
beliefs and being locked into what Holbraad calls a '"smarter-than-thou" stance vis-à-vis
divinatory practice'(2012:55),the facet to be doubted must be the possibility ofdoubt itself.
Any claim to truth that aims to represent a state of affairs in the world must by defin-
ition be open to the possibility of doubt: if I say that it is warm in my ofFice and cold
outside,or that the'ontological tum'is a method and not a theory,I am trying- probably-to
convey a picture ofthe world,and that picture may be correct, but it may equally be mis-
taken, and it is part of the nature of such claims that there is nothing in them to make
them absolutely and undoubtedly trae. So, it foUows that divinatory truth must be non-
representational - it does not aim to convey a picture of the world. As that ethnographic
concept - a truth that has no representative relation to states of affairs in the world, and
whose opposite is not falsehood - has no equivalent within our analytical repertoire,
Holbraad must invent one.That he does in the form ofinventive definition' or'infinirion'.
As it is itselfthus invented,'inventive definition'is both a description of divinatory verdicts
and an instance ofitself(2009).
Infinitions are non-representational truth statements. Like Roy Wagner's concept of
'invention'(1975), they derive their truth not ffom their possession of an externai rela-
tionship to things in the world to which they can be applied either correctly or incor-
recdy, but from the transformative effects they have on the concepts to which they relate.
Thus, as in one of Holbraad's examples, to say - or rather to infme - that 'Wagner is a
genius'(2012: 44) is not to connect two pre-existing entities via an externai relationship
of meaning,but to transform both entities into something new ('Wagner-the-genius').In
the same way, divinatory verdicts are precisely not open to doubt because they do not
represent a state of affairs in the world but modify the objects to which they apply:'You
are bewitched''transforms me from a person who stands in no particular relation to
witchcraft into a person who is being bewitched'(2009:88).
It should be clear that what is being described here is a method or an approach.Towards
the dose ofthe monograph (2012:255),Holbraad lays out explicitly the schema involved,
which I paraphrase here:
Step 1: Describe your ethnographic material with familiar concepts, and do so with the
aim of representing it in the most accurate way possible.
Step 2: Check for instanccs iii which those descriprions do not seem to make sense, or
appear inaccunitc. So. if ycû havc to dcscribe people being'irrational', or'believing'
something your rc.idcrs will think to be false, your familiar concepts have probably
failed. In thc cxainplc abovc, this situation arises because'you are bewitched* cannot
be both a rcprcscntation;ü statenient (as it appears to us) and an indubitable one (as it
is claimed to bc).
Step 3: Try to figure out wiiat is causing the contradiction or confllct in your descrip-
tion, and whieii of your assumptions you need to reconfigure.In the case ofCuban
divination, the eoneept in question is that of truth.
Step 4: Redefine the concepts in question — vvith help from philosophers or other
anthropologists — until your description is cogent andno longergeneratingcontradictions.
Step 5: Ensure that your new description accurately representsyour ethnographic material.
So inventive defmition, as a niodified concept of truth that does away with the con-
tradictions outlined above, draws on the work of philosophers (like Deleuze 1994)
and anthropologists (like Wagner, Strathern and Viveiros de Castro) and renders the
concept of indubitable divinatory verdicts into something we can make sense of,
rather than a logical absurdity.
To return again to the question of heuristics, note again the quite clear sense that this is a
method, not a description of a certain state of aíFairs, and note also the clear statement of
aims; the articulation of 'true representations'. So, and somewhat paradoxically, for
Holbraad thc purpcíse of redefming a concept (in this case truth itself) in relation to eth-
nography is actually to provido truer (in the straightforwardly representationalist sense)
pictures of the world around us.
Criticai perspectives
As I noted at the bcginning of this chapter, the ontological turn has been the target of a
significant quantity of critique since its inception.Some ofthese critics begin with the use
ofthe word itself, and the confusion it is liable to generate amongst those who use it. For
example,is it, as a niotion at the Group for Debates in AnthropologicalTheory proposed,
simply doing the sanie work as the word 'culture'(Carrithers et al. 2010)? If so, surely it
will sufFer from a number of the same drawbacks that any anthropological conception of
a *unit' will: Wherc does it begin and end? What are its essential characteristics? Some
writing within thc ontological turn seenis to have embraced a version of this position.
So Viveiros de C!!astro, for example, in his more recent writings suggests that there is a
political value to what he calls 'tactical quintessentialism'(2011b: 165),a sort of ontologi
cal version of the old 'identity politics' notion of'strategic essentialism',in which aspects
of the identity of a (typically subaltern) group or coUective are treated as essential, for
political purposes. l his quintessentialism serves a purpose in the project ofdeconstructing
our Euro-American assumptions,and that of what he elsewhere refers to as the'theory of
peoples' ontological auto-determination'(2011a: 128).
Elsewhere (2014), Pedersen, Holbraad and Viveiros de Castro, have described their
approach as constituting a new form of politics. They argue that the production of
differencc it precipitates through the encounter between ethnography and conceptualisa-
tion should be thought of as the very stufF of politics, rather than more traditional objects
of political anthropology: 'to think is to differ, as they put it. In this version of the
232 Paolo Heywood
ontological turn, its purpose as a heuristic is something of an admixture of conceptual

innovation and political change. Indeed, their argument is essentially that the two are
inseparable; politics is thinking differendy in the manner that the ontological turn allows.
Yet the politics ofthe ontological turn has also come in for critique. Some (e.g. Bessire
and Bond 2014) take issue with precisely the ways in which they see it as ignoring things
to which anthropologists ofpolitics have long pointed.They suggest that its quest for alter-
ity leads it to ignore the very real and material inequalities and relations of dominatàon
both within the societies upon which it focuses,and between those societies and our own.
A slighdy different but nonetheless politically inclined critique is made by David Graeber
(2015). Graeber highlights the ways in which ontological-turn-inspired accounts are heavily
reliant on specific conceptual premises.So Holbraad's analysis,for example,takes as its start-
ing point the idea that divinatory oracles are always correct. Clearly a lot ofCuban diviners
think this, and equally clearly Holbraad is not claiming that nobody thinks otherwise (see
above). His argument is that it is simply constitutively essential to Cuban divination that it
be unfalsifiable (in the same way that, say, having a legal firamework is essential to a liberal
democracy- even iflaws get broken sometimes).Yet,as Graeber points out,this is effectively
to argue that we should take certain kinds ofstatements as somehow 'authoritative'and then
treat them as if they are generative ofreality, a position that is hard to distinguish from clas-
sical phüosophical idealism (2015:23).As a position,it also demands that we privilege such
authoritative statements,instead ofstarting from the fact that most of our interlocutors are
likely to disagree with one another, and often themselves, about such statements.They are
usually,in other words,as unsure as we are about the nature of reality.
Other critiques ofthe ontological turn focus more on its methodological and/or meta-
physical implications.James Laidlaw (2012), in a review of one of the most prominent
ontological-turn inspired monographs,Morten Axel Pedersens Not Quite Shamam (2011),
has taken issue with the slippage in meaning between 'ontology' as fact out there in the
world,and'ontology' as synonym for culture or cosmology, a slippage that Pedersen hap-
pily acknowledges (2012).As we have seen,it is a founding premise ofthe ontological turn
that there should be no distinction between things we might once have thought of as real
(facts out there in the world) and others we would have thought of as representations
(cultures or cosmologies),
In my own work and other work with Laidlaw,I have also queried this premise (2012;
2013;forthcoming),suggesting that it is in conílict with the ontological turn's purported
methodological openness,and its claim to be just a heuristic device. Even if every conse-
quent move is made in response to ethnographic contingency, the basic and foundational
claim that ontology and epistemology are somehow one and the same thing does not itself
originate from any ethnographic material,and is thus nothmg if not epistemological. Not
only does that make the claim itself somewhat self-refuting, it also suggests that as an
approach it wiU have some problems accounting for people who are not in its own pre-
ferred way 'alter' to ourselves. Although she descends from a àfferent - but very much
related - methodological school,that ofactor-network theory see chapter 13), we nnght
take the work ofAnnemarie Mol on a Dutch atherosclerosis chnic as an example of this
problem (2002). She takes an 'ontological' approach to disease, but. hke her anthropolog-
ical cousins,by this she means that she understands disease as a processu^ admixture made
from both concepts (epistemology) and objects (ontology). T he Dutcdi doctors she studies
world,and representations of it are not.
The ontologicai turn: School or style? 233
Another iiiiplic.itioii cít this point relates to one also made by MichaelScott(2014;seealso
2013; Heysvood 2012): that for ali of its purported focus on difference and aiterity,the actual
descriptions the ontologicai turn prodiices tend to look remarkably similar, despite coming
fiom geographicalK" \ er\' ilistant parts of the world. So how is it that a method premised on
producing new ccíncepts tlirectly in relation to particular ethnographic material should be
constandy producing flw <tnnc hitid c/ concepts (cf. the similarity between Holbraad on infini-
tion and Wagner on iin ention) in relation to diffcrent kinâs êthnography?
In response, I lolhraad (2017) has argued that to see such concepts as similar in spite of
their difFerent ethnographic sources is to fali precisely into the error of distinguishing
between concepts and ethnography froni which the ontologicai turn seeks to rescue us.
He suggests that it one tdllows the injunction to see them as the same kinds of things
consistently, one cannot uiuierstand 'infmition' or 'invention' without refetence to the
ethnography troin which they canie, and thus, to that extent,as different.
Pedersen niakes a similar point in his response to both mine and Laidlaw's arguments
(2012), arguing that to see the ontologicai turn as possessing a hidden,abstract theoretical
fiame is to confuse theory for method: instead of having a vision of the world, he reiter-
ates, the ontologicai turn has an approach to it, one that is quite capable of producing
arguments that might well refute his own, or those of Holbraad, depending upon the
ethnographic material in question.
Conclusíon
This is an apposite point at which to conclude by returning to the question I raised in the
introduction to this chapter: What does it mean to think of an analytical position as a
heuristic, and not as a theory? One thing it seems to entail is having a single response to
a great many criticai arguments: namely that they are simply misguided, because the con
tem ofthe critique is targeted at some substantive position that can then be abandoned or
side-stepped bccause, after ali, it is only a heuristic. I think that response meets its hmit in
the idea of recursivit>' itself- that ethnographic concepts can and should alter our con-
ceptual schemas — that surely cannot be abandoned as a metaphysical position without the
ontologicai turn ceasing to mean anything distinctive, but this is not the place to reiterate
that argument (see I leywood 2012;forthcoming).
Instead, I simply wish to point out what heuristics should also do,in addition to allow-
ing those employing them to avoid criticisms based on substantive positions.They should
raise the question of what exactly it is that they are aiming to achieve,and whether that is
something that we wish our conceptualisations to do. They should do this not only
because such questions logically follow from the use of heuristics (again-tools are mean-
ingless objects without the purpose they are there to accomplish) but also because purposes
are things that we can and should agree and disagree about and debate.Stimulating debate -
as this book,and ali of the ink spillcd over the ontologicai turn.attest to - is surely one of
the things good anthropology, whether school or style,should do.
References
Bessire, L. and D. Bond 201 4. Ontologicai anthropology and the deferral ofcritique./ImencnM Eth-
nologist 41: 440—456.
Candea,M.2016. De deux inodilités de comparaison en antropologie sociale.L'Hí)mme218;183-281.
Chapter 15
Persons and partible persons

Marilyn Strathern
The final topic serves as something by way of a conclusion to the book. Controversies
over personhood ofFer a means of reflection on the way anthropologists niake and use
the concepts without which there would be no dialogue. Like other chapters in this
book, this chapter touches on broad areas of anthropological theorizing of which it is
necessarily but a digest. However, this chapter creates a focus for the reader through
drawing mainly on two recent collections of essays:*The anthropology of personhood,
redux:Views from Christianity',edited by Bialecki and Daswani,and'Gender and person
in Oceania',edited by Morgain andTaylor.Between them,these recapitulate and extend
much of the current state of play, especially in relation to changing conditions of social
life; they also offer ethnographic materiais. Other works are referenced to indicate that
many paths and avenues, many lines for pursuit, lead out from and back into even this
smaU part of the field.
Prologue
Concepts that travei are of particular interest to social anthropology. For if it is as trav-
ellers that they appear, then they have obviously come from somcwhere, by contrast
with those formulations that seem already at home. Comparative potential cannot be
realized in the same way.To make it of comparative use,'person', familiar within the
scope of everyday language, would have to be defamiliarized;foreign to regular English
usage, by contrast,'partible person' would need to explain its origins, and not least any
further paths of migration. Half-way between, anthropological reflections on 'the
person'as an abstract category already hint at an entity on the move,creating a field of
its own.
The person has long woven in and out ofsocial science discourse,occasionally erupting
as an exphcit focus of attention, notably through Mauss in his 1938 Huxley Memorial
Lecture and its Enîsh regeneration 50 years later (Carrithers et al. 1985; Fortes 1987).
Latterly, over a period that some relate to the falling away of interest in formal kinship
studies, others to a postmodern moment, personhood has come to occupy a broad con-
ceptual space within social anthropology. Diverse theorizings about its role in social
process entail diverse locations that set its analytical contours in certain moulds.This is the
issue taken up here. In order to create an analytically robust category, accounts of the
person have always done batde with different investments in the concept; recent debate
over the partible person is but an example.
Persons and partible persons 237
The field of the person

As an analytical conccpt,the person inhabits a field ofconcepts. For Euro-Americans,the
field flovvcrs with .i whole range: (in English) person, individual, self, agent, subject,
human being. I hese inay be variously distributed accordingto the task in hand;they may
also be regarded as cohering,such that ifit is 'person' that emerges as the comprehensive
point of referenee, etnnponents of the range appear in terms of it, namely as 'aspects of
the person'.These aspects then organize our sense of what a person is through particular
attributes, as when an indi\ idu;il person is ascribed inner consciousness or undivided
body.Attributes are organi/ing insofiir as they give the construct in question certain con-
tours. One of the thenies of this chapter is the way in which concepts or constructs are
themselves structured. I hus \ve niay note that (analytically speaking) each component of
the range — person, individual and so forth — may equally be understood as a discrete
object of enquiry, and thus in another way appears in terms relevant to one of them,
namely 'individually'.
It was with referenee to the idea of human universais that Mauss wanted to show that,
as a category of the human mind, notions of person might yet have a social history (see
chapter 1). He does so by a double defamiliarization: on the one hand,citing various eth-
nographic and historical infiections of the concept;and on the other,inttoducing(into the
field) variants of the term person itself, which endure in anthropological discussion in
their French or I atin forin. Pcrsoiuiage, persona, persoime, followed by the self (fíioí), mark
different modes of conceptiuUization; the human subject of them ali being termed 'an
individual'. These modes are individuais as characters or role-players/as legal or forensic
entities/as endowed with inner soul or conscience/as the cultivators of consciousness,
respectively. Me intends us to understand such conceptualizations as thoroughly social:
how human thought moves on, he says, through societies and their metamorphoses. His
organization of the field is itself still in movement.
If, as many anthropologists would today take for granted,the individual as a person is a
thoroughly social entity — personhood being'the emergent form ofthe self as it develops
within a context of social relations', and'individual selves [being] social in their very con-
stitution'(Ingold 1994:744-745)- this is in part because they endorse a perspective fiom
social life (that is, as an analytical position,ffom which in truth ali constructs are 'social').
Nonetheless, it is useful to distinguish this sense of the individual as a person fiom the
person as an individual, l he latter's individualism entails a historical-cultural conceptual-
ization of person or self as endowed with specific attributes such as autonomy or human
dignity.This is 'individualism' as a value (Robbins 2015, after Dumont). Rapport (2010)
takes a famous argument from Melanesia,concerning the Gahuka-Gamaconceptofperson
(Read 1955), to the effect that these people lack a concept of the'individual person',that
is, of a person as an individual, and the attributes accompanying it, only recognizing
socially defined positions where distinct personalities arise from combinations of social
relations. Rapport's own view is that whether or not they pursue'individualism'as a value,
they are bound, likc ali human beings, by an irreducible 'individuaUty' that shows in the
discreteness of mind and body, agency and consciousness.
The 'lack' is illuminating. Is a contemporary outcome of Mauss's field of concepts a
double disconafort with,on the one hand,analyses that yield everything to'social relations'
and their occluding of individualized agency and, on the other, an awkward admission
about re-instating thereby a traditional-modern dualism? It is a discomfort often expressed.
238 Marilyn Strathern
A Melanesianist has recendy rephrased it in the words of the French sociologist Théry:
*What then of the agency of the individual and their ability to act for thenisclves ... in
traditional societies vv^here the higher value is that of relationships?'(2009,cited in Lepani
2015:51).What ofself-awareness, of the ability to make one's acts or words one s own,to
recognize them as one s own and answer for them? This last, a forensic attribute (self-
accountability),also demarcates the importance ofprotecting the'unitary person'in modem
administrations:*In our culture the prime need is individual freedom'(Douglas 1995: 85;
see Rapport 2012).The impression is given that an oppressiveness ofsorts can be read into
social relations. It is as though it were in the face ofimprisonment by convention or insti-
tution that, as an analytic, the person should be ffeed to flower in that whole field of
constructs where self-consciousness and autonomy also grow.
Relatíonal persons
The phrase 'relatdonal person' will serve to summarize approaches that stress the embed-
dedness of persons in relations. For concomitantly with a renewed interest in personhood,
a new kind of conceptual space seems available for the 'relational'; an epithet applying to
ali manner of links, ties and connections, whether concrete or abstract. Here, however,
relations -including but not exclusive to social relations- have a benign cast. Needless to
say, the positive value often attached to relations is as analytically unhelpful as a negative
value; the question is the work the concept does. It cannot, of course, be considered by
itself alone.
A brief digression on the way constructs participate in one another may be helpflil.
We have already encountered the individual as person and the person as individual:
I would see the whole field as an assemblage of merographic relations.The epithet(mero-
graphic) need not detain us;it simply points to certain epistemic strategies, ways of organ-
izing knowledge,enabled by English and other European language usage.Thus,connections
can be made between parts ofsocial life in a way that sustains the individuality ofeach,for
anything may be distinguishable as a part ofsomething else,so nothing is ever simply part
of a whole because another perspective, or interpretation, may redescribe it as part of
something else (Strathern 1992: 72—73). Contextualizing, taking multiple viewpoints,
switching perspectives (e.g. if a concept is part of a field, the field is part of the concept):
these analytical devices familiar to anthropology sustain such relations. In effect, it is rela
tions between constructs that position them so that they seemingly work by themselves.
This is evident in the conceptual field of the person. Person,self, agent and so forth: any
ofthem may be taken as the singular starting point for discussing any other. Moreover,any
can be rendered distinctive by other perspectives;for example, whether one takes the per
son as an autobiographical self, a legal individual or an internationally acknowledged
human being.Just so,the field itself may be re-contoured through constructs that concern
psychoanalysis, zoology,the state, et alia. Anything in these Euro-American formulations,
it would seem,is individualizable through connections; anything,too,is thus connectable;
indeed, relations run riot. So it sometimes perplexes anthropologists how anyone could
have imagined that everything was not already relational.
Apropos personhood,there are at least two dimensions to calling an approach relational.
First is the invitation to anthropologists to keep their minds open to the interconnected-
ness of phenomena, whether such openness is regarded as inheritcd from structuralism
(relations between relations - see chapter 2) or as ofFering an escape from positivist
apprehensions of sociccy or culcurc. For instance, a relarional approach may render rela-
rions noc as 'othcr' to a 'sclf (the person as self), but as intrinsic to the selfas an intersub-
jective entit>'(the sclf as a person). Here the concept ofthe social may even be a distraction:
thus Toren (2012) points rather to an irreducible aspect of human ontogeny, namely the
co-constitution of persons over their lifetimes.
A second reastm hehind the prevalent depioyment ofrelarional is ethnographic enlight-
enment, to bring into theoretical purview lessons leamt 6om numerous fíelds of study.
Anthropologists have long shared with sociologists diverse understandings of 'social
networks'(not to be confused with actor networks — see chapter 13),and early/mid-20th
century 'roles' and 'statuses' were nothing if they were not relarional concepts describing
how persons were einbedded in relations with others. But ethnographic elucidarion often
gives them fresii einphasis. Bonnemère uses a 'relarional approach'in her study of ritual
processes that transforni Ankave people over dieir life cycle in order to extract the theo
retical significance of'relarional statuses' from other approaches to gender idenrity.These
statuses are distinguishable frt>in the person ('individual subject') occupying them.(The crux
for her is that such relations'remain externai to the person even as changes in the person's
status depend on them'(2014:740].)A further strand comes in with some anthropologists*
almost urgent need to specify a 'relationism' on a par - whether through analyrical parity
or analytical privilege (Candea 2011)- withWestern or Euro-American'individualism*.
This latter placement or location ofconcepts (relarionism/individualism) demands further
exposition.
Perhaps part of the urgency of relationism lies in its general implicarions for recognizing
how ali manner of phenomena bear on one another, not least at a rime of crisis perceived
as ecologicaJ. Indeed, the appeal to relationism has been salutary in many ways too evident
to rehearse here — both in the task of describing heterogeneous realiries not encompassed
by Euro-American cosmologies and in binding analyses together, as was always under-
scored by the conceptual work of sociocentric analysis. It is the supposirion that people
everywhere participate in one another's identiries that drives Sahlins's vision ofkinship.and
ofkin persons as'relationally constructed'; he underscores the category mistake ofegocentric
(rather than sociocentric) kinship thinking that renders'the relarionships of kinship as the
attributes of singular persons'(2013: 27). But the everywhere seems especially evident in
particular somewheres. Englund andYarrow (2013) observe the pivotal place Melanesian
ethnography holds in Robbins's exposition of relationism as opposed to individualism.
They would be in sympathy with the fact that there is, however, more to it than that.
In being 'relationist, Melanesian cultores value the crearion of relarionships over that of
other cultural forms'(Robbins 2004: 292).That value is not ofthe same order as the stress
Robbins would put on'one ofDumont's most fundamental assumprions:that ali human life
grows out ofsocial relations'(2015:173),which is the source of his holism.The latter is the
vantage point ffoni which (Western)'individualism' appears as a specific ideology. Holism
is thus at once a value found in some socieries and a theoretical concept (for a human con-
dition) that encompasses individualism and Melanesian relationism alike. Invesrigaring
which value system appears transcendent is shadowed by the same issue in conceptual
vocabulary. But if we explicidy require that the concepts we deploy should themselves
convey a sense ofan encompassing interconnectedness (that seems the role ofholism apropos
leveis of value), there are many ways to do it, and we have stumbled into another field.
This is the field in which the 'social','sociocentric','mutual','relarional','hoHsric'(the
French would add 'collective') josde for light. Across anthropological accounts, each is
240 Marllyn Strathern
variously aligned with the others and,as with the field of the person, each may be taken
as a starting point for analysis.Thus,'the relational' appears to have the limelight in ques-
tions over whether to describe relationism as co-present with individualism or as diagnostic
ofa theoretically distinguishable cosmology.
This abstract summoning ofindividualism is the point at which flowery fields turn into
batdegrounds.Why do some feel that they have to fight it, that relations will wobble if
they are not held together? Perplexing indeed how anyone familiar with the stress
Euro-Americans put on making relations could imagine everything is not already rela
tional. Perhaps the problem is precisely that making the supposition explicit cannot be the
same as taking it as an implicit assumptdon. For those looking for it, that implicit place
appears occupied by individualism. It appears in the contours of their (Euro-Americans')
very tools of analysis. Through the organizing lens of merographic thinking, relations
seemingly spring from,and return to, what is taken for granted: concepts - such as the
person - that are ali too readily individualized.This brings us to a construct that is not
quite the same as the relational person.
Partible persons
Whether or not there is anything specific about Melanesian forms of relationism is a ques-
tion that can only be noted here. It remains true that Melanesia has been a significant
contributor to controversies over concepts ofpersonhood.Controversy continues,and the
reader should probably take everything that follows as controversial. Two collections
drawn on here - not least for the way they show the importance of simultaneously con-
tinuing to theorize and to address new ethnographic ventures-figure Melanesian materiais.
Robbins's paper came firom the same journal issue as'The anthropology of personhood,
redux'(Bialecki and Daswani 2015); the other,'Gender and person'(Morgain andTaylor
2015), was part of a project instigated by Jolly that also introduced Théry's work to an
English-speaking audience.
However their interlocutors formulate things, scholars know their analytics set them
apart.They are unlikely to find people's notions ofindividuais' or 'relations' doing what
they need for their analyses.That does not, however, mean they are locked in to only very
local milieux or that ideas cannot travei across social contexts or disciplines. It was litera-
ture fix)m Melanesia, alongside Amazônia and Indonésia, that convinced Théry that a
'relational' perspective 'is not restricted to the understanding of distant societies. It can
readily be taken up in itself extrapolating from them,and reworked, in terms of research
centred on our own culture and Western societies'(2009: 5). Indeed, such openness is a
prerequisite to the idea oflearning (Laidlaw 2014).InThéry's understanding,'the individ
ual cannot be separated from the concrete "whole" that is society in which they partici-
pate as a person, as an agent of human acts' (2009: 13). She contrasts two European
positionings ofthe self, the *1' who is a someone with their personal attributes, along with
a sense of personal identity,and the T ofinterlocution,the speaking person taking posses-
sion of its own acts, its own words (one context of the remarks previously cited).The
attributes ofthe latter are not absolute but(we could say) composite,for'mine'only exists
in relation to 'yours','hers' and so forth: such a person cannot be solely an T insofar as
other grammatical positions are implied.We can in turn make this notion travei.There is
a kind of Melanesian T that is put into words: it is heard from the doers of actions,from
those we may call agents. People emphasize the autonomy of acting,on having the action
in their mind, on thc oncncss of thc act. An act is, in this view,like an individuated con-
cept.Just as 1 héry distinguishcs the grammatical T from the self as a unitary entity, argu-
ably there are cosiiiologics wliere the autonomy of taking action (the reflexive claim that
one did it) can be distinguished froni tlie kind ofsubjective accoimtability or self-fashioning
that turns persons into the authors oftheir acts.An agent may(in'Melanesian'-speak) own
up to an act whose cause lies with others. Lepani gives a present-day Trobriand example
of such autononious acting: a strong-ininded woman who 'in no longer caring for her
child but rather cooking for her father ...[and] younger siblings ...took possession ofher
narrativo identity, not witii vvords but through acts of labour'(2015: 56). Insofar as the
impulse for that action is simultaneously understood as originating in and oriented towards
others, then it seenis to be within such a relational context that the self becomes a refer-
ence point. Ckmversely, I epani s demonstration makes it abundandy clear that acknow-
ledging the relations at issue does not obliterate the individuality or autonomy of action.
It may be helpful to think of it as a 'grammatical'autonomy,thus carrying a'grammatical'
responsibility.
This brings nie to the status of the partible person in the anthropological repertoire.
As a onc-tinie author of the awkward phrase, I pose the question whether it is still of
comparativo use. It was originally introduced in response to materiais &om Melanesiabut,
as Englund and Yarrow (2013:133) note of the 'composite person', notjust that- and its
form is indicativo. Unlike the 'relational person', the 'partible person' is not an amalgam.
If it is animated it is by the anticipatory potential of what its parts might enable. It is cer-
tainly not a hybrid concept as one might derive fixjm bringing together the relational and
personal, an intiination of how a society/individual antithesis might be resolved. It offers
a different resolution.
'Partible' occupics its own microcosmic field, alongside'dividual','distributed','com
posite','múltiplo', ali epithets used of persons (see,for example, Mosko 2015:362),and it
is no surprise that these participate in,and overlap with,one another.Together,they reflect
attempts to avoid assuming that before anything else the person is an individual. They
cover studies where the focus of concern is personhood as such,as in the anthropological
address to Christianity, and those where the treatment of personhood is diagnostic of
other issues, as Carsten (2004) suggests with respect to kinship.That said, the dividual in
Tite Geuder of the Gift (Strathern 1988), as indicated by the descriptive phrase 'partible
person', was an address to 'society'. It was an attempt to find a counterpart to the individ
ual of the individual/society dualism. Under the value of individualism, society was at
once regarded as absorbing everything anthropologists might want to say about relations
and understood as assuming that relations were 'between' individuais. The concept of
individual,and the attributes it summoned,thus affected how one might deploy society as
an analytical construct, as in the idea of sociality. If the kind of individual projected by
certain mainstream views of society in effect pointed to a particular (Euro-American)
cosmology, then for other kinds of relational configurations it might be necessary to put
forward a concept with different contours.With respect to Melanesia,I borrowed'person'
firom existing anthropological usage (as socially understood) and'partibility'from the flow
of'detached, partible things' in exchange to which Wagner (1977: 631) referred. Like
dividual,from another ethnographic location altogether,the awkwardness ofthe resulting
phrase indicated its non-(Hnglish) vernacular origins.
Partible person, then, explicidy divided itself offfrom the dualism of(person as) indi
vidual and society (imagined as relations between individuais).Yet diere are limits to how
far one can go against the grain of language. Other anthropologists have taken the term
person to connote'an individual' as in individualism,even in conceptual form - the con-
cept itself understood as individuated,indexing'the person'as a discrete,identifiable entity,
and thus as an object ofindependent enquiry.This is not helped by my having described
the (Melanesian) composite person as a singularity,even though it was contrasted with the
individualizing actions ofan agent. Here I was proposing a language for talking about the
perpetuai alternation ofperspectives'between being the incomplete agent who is activated
in relation to another and the complete person,a product ofothers interactions'(Strathern
1988:287),in which it is the latter that is singular, a composite entity derived ffom mul-
tiple relations. This condition of multiple constitution also renders the person partible,
namely as an entity that antkipates partition, as when an agent acts to shed one set of rela
tions in favour of another in eliciting an orientation to itself. Nonetheless, the general
upshot has been that my language seemingly erased the very phenomenon — society/
sociality - I had hoped to redescribe.
Let me turn this into a moment ofinterchange: maybe it was this seeming erasure that
led to Sahlins attributing to my argument about the Melanesian person both an egocen-
tric view (I was the target of the comments above), and a confusion between partibility
and participation.There is more theoretically at stake, he says, than 'the make-up of indi
vidual persons'(2013:25).Yet this is exacdy the point on which I would query his reading
of the person as inevitably the person as individual in the first place! So we are in fact in
agreement over the problem.The contours of these concepts become a question of ana-
lytdcal choice.Thus,Sahlins would use 'partibility' of any distribution of personal invest-
ment in relations (as in role-playing), as distinct from the participation of persons in one
another's lives through incorporation or mutual embodiment, as kin everywhere partici-
pate,for which he allows the concept'dividuality'. Others see the two concepts as synon-
ymous. In the debate on the status of the individual, it is the dividual (rather than the
partible) that seems the more widely generalizable category.
Sahlins's argument also affords a platform for divergence.At the heart of where he puts
dividuality, kinship, I might point to those English if not Euro-American kin configura-
tions that, endorsing a particular theory of society, reproduce the person as individual,
where social relations are imagined as relations with other individuais. For this kind of
individual, attachment and detachment hardly work in the way they do when 'persons'
and 'agents' are more hke alternative perspectives on social life (see Schram 2015).The
subtraction and addition of relations ffom/to this 'English' individual comes through a
multiplicity of possible viewpoints (relations with other individuais), such that one traveis
ffom one arena of knowledge to another.This is not the mathematics (grammar) of what
I had understood as dividuality. On the contrary,putting the English situation this way was
originally inspired by what seemed to me the rather different relational circumstances of
the 'Melanesian' dividual - hence the further specification of partibility. But is there any
point now in making a special case for partibility?
From his point ofview,Mosko has argued strongly for the distinctiveness of Melanesian
partibihty as an attribute of personhood with very specific contours. When he writes,
where 'people from a Western viewpoint might appear to be exchanging objects ... in
indigenous Melanesian perspective they are rather transacting over bits of themselves as
persons' (2010: 219), the references that follow are not coníined to Melanesia (and
are both before and after Strathern 1988). But,crucially, what became debated as the par
tible person appears in the unfolding of exchange relations: as 'one who is divisible or
Persons and partlble persons 243
diuide-ablc into coniptíncnt parts or rclations that are transactable ...through processes of
elicirive gift cxcliangc'(Mosko 2015:362,original emphasis).The diagnostíc ofpartibility
for Mosko lies in thc dctachinent and attachment of parts.'Through actíng, partible
persons are í/rconiposcd, anticipating and evincing the recognition of their extemalized
capacities through thc responses of corresponding [others]'(2010:218,original emphasis).
While, in certain arcas of Melanesia, cerenionial gift exchange achieves this in political
contexts, and life-cycle exchanges in kinship ones, he does not restrict detachment and
attachment to tlie flow of partible exchange items,the origin ofmy own usage. Moreover,
Mosko has lifted tlie restrictions even further,to include sacrifice in religious contexts.His
expandcd model of partible personhood takes him into intriguing waters when it comes
to ritual action and Cdiristian theolog>'.The distincriveness of partibility, or dividuality in
this sense, is shtíwn up by its continuing relation to (comparison with) other analytical
configurations. Thus, he argues against what appear to him 'relatàonist' misreadings of
Melanesian socialit)': apropos the exchange of items:
Regardless of how intensely people valorize relationships, if the items transacted are
not regarded as parts of the transactors as persons,relationist perspectives tacidy reca-
pitulate the subject/object distinction on which possessive individualism in theWest
is premised.
(2010:219)
The usage of 'dividual' carne from outside Melanesia, it being Marriott's (1976; see
Marriott and Inden 1977) term apropos Hindu índia. Reflecting on her South Indian
fieldwork, Busby (1997) was struck by the consensus among Melanesianists at the time
that led to them depicting bodily composition in terms of'parts', as when maternal blood
and paternal semen are described as male and female parts in the reproduction ofthe person.
By contrast,in South índia, persons engage with others in flows ofsubstance but the latter
'always refer to the persons from whom they originated: they are a manifestation of per
sons rather than of the relationships which they create'(p. 273). Busby counterposed two
constructions of the person, the one 'internally divided and partible (Melanesia), [the
other] ... internally whole, but with a fluid and permeable body boundary (índia)* (p.
269).It is thc cjuality ofsubstantive permeability thatWerbner(2011)stresses in his account
ofApostolic charismatics in Botswana as dividuals. Busby*s observation that the one term,
dividual, can obscure fundamental (regional) differences remains salutary.
It is reanimatcd in current questions about the co-presence of'individuahsm and rela-
tionality'(Morgain and Taylor 2015), asWerbner (2011) has also articulated by bringing
together the concepts of dividual and'relational selfand proposinga model of dividuality
and individuality as 'mutually constitutivo'. Bialecki and Daswani explicitly argue for
taking dividual/individual less as heuristics or as different modes oforganizing the subject
than as actualizations of real-life problematics worked through in various locales, with
diverse dividual and individual crystallizations ofthe person.Individualism and dividualism
emerge 'as dynamics that mutually implicate each other' (2015: 272). For them, the
question is how problcms are structured, where, for instance, self-fashioning becomes a
project, and thus where and when a concept appears significam as an actable-on-capacity
(after Humphrcy 2008).Yet one cannot tell by simple inspection: the conditions under
which any concept bccomes imalytkally actable-on will depend on its place in one's field
of concepts.
Travellíng concepts
Such interchanges are,it seems to me,highly productive of what we niight want compar-
ison to do.They underscore the role of anthropologists' larger intentions in their own
formulation of problems (as in problematics), which is one reason why so much of this
chapter has been taken up with the construction of constructs. The contours of one's
concepts matter. Hence the chapter has treated the'relational person'as an exemplar ofthe
ambition to evoke sociality and intersubjecrivity in the making of persons.Yet the dualis-
tic construction of that concept allows it - may even encourage it - to encompass the
dualism of society/individual as well; even with the language of persons, it can reduce
relationism to a notion ofan entíty and its relations.(The reduction is in analytical poten-
tial; it is ofcourse an English colloquialism to speak ofindividuais situated in networks of
relations.) The 'partible person' is a much less tractable concept, but in avoiding that
analytical trap appeared (to diverse critics) to forget about society altogether. It is no
surprise perhaps that the partible person has not travelled as far as the dividual (Sahlins
2013: 25 gives an itinerary). Indeed,like 'composite' or 'distributed', the 'dividual' traveis
between the micro-fields of both the relational and the partible person.
For the writers cited here,choice of analytic category invariably points to fundamental
formulations of thought and social life. Where Euro-Americans might see divisions as
having to be overcome,the notion of partible person addressed the active role that divi-
sion or partition plays in Melanesian understandings of relations (e.g. Schram 2015: 323).
Stasch (2009:10) talks thus ofthe'internai alterity ofKorowai social relations'. Now,quite
apart from the Euro-American counter-tradition invested in theorizing alterity that Stasch
addresses are other mainstream conventions.Thus,in describing its (the partible person's)
contours as a concept,I gave it an evident'relational' cast, as an element in a wider analyt
ical configuration.The excursus on merographic connections showed a further dimcnsion
to the way in which Euro-Americans routinely imagine relations between concepts:
namely how they participate in or are part of one another. So I can also give the concept
a 'partible' cast in the English vernacular: by dividing a construct - any construct - from
its relational nexus one is able to take it as a detached entity with the potcntial for travel-
ling. Indeed, this might be an apt metaphor for apprehending aspects of Melanesian
personhood, even though in EngUsh this is not a salient attribute in the way persons are
generaUy celebrated or indeed constructed.
As to that difference, what we may have learnt from a reminder of an originally restric-
tive ('Melanesian') reading of partibility is how particular kinds of partitioning work.
It makes a difference whether divisions are taken for granted or must be acted upon,and
they may be divisions at any scale ofsocial life. In the words of Morgain andTaylor (2015:7),
Théry's challenge is to'individualistic understandings of human nature ...by attacking the
dualist vision that underpins such understandings ... in which the human person is seen
to be composed of two distinct entities'(here,self and body). If, indeed,there is a dualism
in secular post-Enlightenment thinking rooted in identitarian approaches to the individ-
uated nature of phenomena,then the numerous occasions on which entities are opposed
only to be merged, hybridized or otherwise rendered co-present or - as in the modernist
society-individual duo - co-produced,reveals its particular creativity.The revelations may
prompt concept-makers to move their constructs around again. Like shifting the contours
of the grammatical T to include the'grammatical' act, the performance of such analytical
moves can sometimes tell us more than a direct address to Euro-American knowledge
practices would have let us know.
What thosc pmcticcs do promete is a horizon of seemingly limitless movement, on

which thc creativc task is to put new limits. Needless to say, anthropologists are always
picking up conccpts and running with them - what would be the point ofconcepts that
did not travei? Whcn thcy become springboards for new ventures, in this dynamic, old
conceptuaJ fields are inevitably left behind.
Acknowledgements
Sedimented in this chapter are ideas that have traveiled from diverse sources,although the
references are highly scicctive. Special thanks for the criticisms and illuminations offeredin
the works ofMichacl C'arrithers, MargaretJoUy.LisetteJosephides.BníceKapferer and Alan
Rumsey. Serge I cherkézoff kindly sent me a copy of Irène Théry's inaugural lecture.At
the time of writing, I hcld a I.everhulme Emeritus Fellowship for which I express much
appreciation.
References
Bialecki.Jon and Girish Daswani (cds.) 2015.The anthropology ofpersonhood,redux:Vievvs finm
Christianitry, HAU:Jotinuil of Btliiiogniphic Tlieory,5 (1): 271-404.
2015. Introduction; What is an individual? The view from Chrisdanity. HAU:Jourtuú of
Ethiiographii rhcory 5 (1): 271—294.
Jolly, Margaret 2015. Bnied pnics in Vanuatu: Both gifts and commodities? Oceania 85 (1):63-78.
Lepani, Katherine 2015.'I am still a young girl if I want': Relational personhood and individual
autonomy in theTrobriand Islands. Oceania 85 (1):51—62.
Morgain, Rachel and John 'laylor 2015. Transforming relations of gender, person, and agency.
Oceania 85 (1): 1-9.
Mosko, Mark 2015. Unbecoming individuals:The partible character ofthe Christian person.Hd(7;
Journal of Ethnograpliic llieory 5 (1): 361-393.
Robbins, Joel 2015. Dumont's hierarchical dynamism: Christianity and individualism revisited.
HAU:Jonrnal of Etlinographic Thcory 5 (1); 173-195.
Schram, Ryan 2015. A society divided: Death, personhood, and Christianity in Auhelawa, Papua
New Guinea. HAU:Journal of Ethnographic Tlieory 5 (1): 317—337.
Taylor.John and Rachel Morgain (eds.) 2015. Gender and person in Oceania, Oceania, voLSS.
Other references
Bonnemère, Pascale 2014. A relational approach to a Papua New Guinea male ritual cycle.JR/4/
(N.S.) 20 (4): 728-745.
Busby, Cecilia 1997. Permeable and partible person:A comparative analysis ofgender and body on
South Índia and Melanesia.J/M/ (N.S.) 3 (2): 261-278.
Candea, Matei 2011. Endo/Exo. Connnon Knowíedge 17 (1): 146-154.
Carrithers, Michael. Steven Collins and Steven Lukes 1985. The Category ofthe Person:Anthropology,
Philosophy, Histor)'. Gambriâge: Cambridge University Press.(Includes translation byW.D.Halls of
Mauss's Une catégorie de Vesprit huniain: La notion de personne, celle de 'tnoifJRAI68,1938.)
Carsten,Janet 2004. After Kinsliip. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, Mary 1995.The cloud god and the shadow self. Social Anthropology 3(2): 83-94.
Englund, Harri andThomasYarrow 2013.The place oftheory: Rights, networks,and ethnographic
comparison. Social Analysis 57 (3): 132-149.
Fortes, Meyer 1987. Religion Morality and the Person: Essays on Tallensi Religion,]. Goody (ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Humphrey,Caroline 2008.Reasembling individual subjects:Events and decisions in troubled times.

AnthropologicalTbeory 8 (4): 357-380.
Ingold.Tim 1994. Introduction to 'social life': Becoming a person. In T. Ingold (ed.), Cotiipunioti
Encyclopedia o/Anthropology:Humaniíy, Culture and Social Life, pp.744-747. London: Routledge.
Laidlawjames 2014. T7ie Subject oJVirtue:AnAnthropoíogy oJEthics and Freedoni.Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press.
Marriott, McKim 1976. Hindu transactions: Diversity vrithout dualism. In B. Kapferer (ed.), Trans-
action and Meaning, pp. 109-142.Philadelphia,PA:ISHI Publications.
Marriott,McKim and Ronald Inden 1977.Towards an ethnosociology ofSouth Asian caste systems.
In K. David (ed.), TIte New Wind: Changing Ideníities in South Asia, pp. 227-238. The Hague:
Mouton.
Mosko, Mark 2010. Partible penitents: Dividual personhood and Christian practice in Melanesia
and the West JRAI (NS) 16 (2): 215-240. (Plus responses from Robbins, Knauft, Barker,
Errington and Gewertz;see also the article by Street in the same volume.)
Rapport, Nigel 2010.Individualism. In A.Barnard and J. Spencer (eds.), The Routledge Encyclopedia
ofSocial and Cultural Anthropology, 2nd edition, pp. 378 -382. London: Routledge.
2012.Anyone:The Cosmopolitan Subject ofAnthropology, NewYork, NY:Berghahn Books.
Read,Kenneth 1955. Morality and the concept of the person among the Gahuka-Gama, Oceania
25 (4): 233-282.
Robbins,Joel 2004. Becoming Sinners: Christianity and Moral Torment in a Papua New Guinea Society.
Berkeley, CA:University of Califórnia Press.
Sahlins, Marshall 2013. What Kinship Is-And is Not. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.
Stasch, Rupert 2009. Society of Others: Kinship and Mourning in a West Papitan Place. Berkeley, CA:
University of Califórnia Press,
Strathern, Marilyn 1988. TIte Gender ofThe Gift: Problems With Women and Problems With Society in
Melanesia. Berkeley, CA:University of Califórnia Press.
1992. AJier Nature: English Kinship in the Late Tiventieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Théry,Irène 2009. Gender:A quesdon ofpersonal identity or a mode of social relations? Inaugural
lecture. Centre M.Bloch,EHESS,Berlin, translated by S Anderson-Morton and S TcherkézoÔ*.
(Accessed 21 August 2016: www.pacific-dialogues.fr/pdf74-lT_ConfBerlin_2009_def.pdf.)
(Drawn firomThéry,Irène 2007,La distinction de sexe: Une nouvelle approche de 1'égalité. Paris: Odile
Jacob.)
Toren, Christina 2012. Imagining the world that warrants our imagination: The revelation of
ontogeny. Cambridge Anthropology 30 (1):64—79.
Wagner,Roy 1977.Analogic kinship:A Daribi example./iHiehcd// Ethnologist 4 (4): 623-642.
Werbner, Richard 2011.The charismatic dividual and the sacred self.Journal of Religion in África
41 (2): 201-226.
Index
1968, events of 79.86 Althusser, L.73.82,175,177

Amadiume,1.203-204
Abbott.A. 5, 1 1. 15n4. 20. 56nl9 Anderson,B. 117n2
Abu-Lughod. 1.. 197-199,202-204,205 Anderson,P.85
action 30,50. 72. 74-75,82. 110. 113-116, aninials see non-human,animais
139-140. 177. 178. 186. 240-242; animism 18,28,33,167,228
constitutively ineaningfui 149-150; TlieAtmales 114-115
distributed 213.215-217. 220; ritual 243; anotuie 91
social 41.69—71.91-92. 106n5. 217;5ce also anthropology at home 198-199,211-213
agency, actor, praccicc anthropology ofwomen 13,50,195-197,
activism 88, 154. 181,201-202,221 n5 200-201,204-205
actor-netvvork thcory 1,7-8. 10. 14, 15n5, anthropomorphism 139-140,145
55nl3, 131 n5. 209-223, 225. 232; and apartheid 113-114,123,128,130
•actors' 209-213.215-217,219; and Appadurai.A. 117,164
'networks' 213—215;and social archaeology 22-23,109,209
constructionisin 21 1-212, 217,219; as a Ardener,E. 10,185,195
critique of sociology 217-218; critiques of Arendt, H.160
131,217-218; is not a theory 218-220,225 articularion 82-83,191
actors: in situational analysis 124-125; the Asad,T. 51-52,53,93,97-98,110,181
perspective of 3,74,91,93-106 sce also ascetics 178
action; actor-nctwork theory, and actors; Astuti,R.141,143-144
agency Austin.J. L. 148
Adorno,T.W. 13. 14, 160—165 auüsm 142
aesthetics, 31 82.88, 140; of existence 179-180 avoidance íee joking and avoidance
aíFect 190-192 avunculate 66-67
affines see niarriage
Agamben,G. 162, 168 Bachofen,J. 20,26
agency 13, 14,50-51,74, 105, 109-110, Bailey, F. 99
111—112, 126; and structure 14, 50-51, Bakhtin, M.75,154
73—74,105, 126, 210, 216—217;cognitive Barad,K.52-53,218,221 n5
theories of attribution 139-140, 143; Barth, F. 50,79,91,92-99,101,104-106
nonhuman 215-218;sec also action, practice, Barthes, R.117n2
freedom Bateson, G.37
agriculture 68,83,87. 136, 145 belief53,91,140,141,143.149-150,211-212,
Ahmed.A.97—98 214; as a problematic anthropological
alliance: marriage scc kinship, alliance; political category 215-216,217,219,229-230;
86,93-94, 103-104,122 rationality of witchcraft 41,44-45
Alonso,A. M.201-202 Benedict, R.31,37,150,156'
alterity 166,226, 229,232-239,244 see aíso Benjamin,W. 13,159-168
difference Benson,S.50
248 index
BialeckiJ. 236,240,243 178—181;language 61-62;social 14, 22,

binarism 113,199,205,228—229 ízí also 20-24,26-28,55n6.55n8,74,81-82,84-86,
dualism,dichotomy 161,173-175,196;see also evolutionism,
biology 19-21,32;anthropologists leave the history, process
study of nature to 7,185; as a model for Chayanov,A.85-86
anthropology 13,19,31,32-33,48-49; Chicago School 124
ethnography of 211-213,218;evolution in chiefe 41,86,93.106,111,114
20—21,32;firebreak between sociology and choice 91-99,101,126,201;see also rational
13,32—33,38-39;informing anthropological choice theory
explanations 30,37,142;local biologies 192; Chomsky, N. 137
V. culture 185-190,199-200,204;and Christianity 112,114,116, 122,143, 145n9,
wonien's subordination 195-196,20\;see 177,180,187,241,243
also comparison,biological; evolutionism, civil rights see rights, civil
Darwinian;funcdon, biological notion of; clan 42-44,45,64-67,93
organic analogy nature; process, biological; class 83,97-98,99-104,113,203,216-219
reproductíon,social and biological; classification 23,34,89,102-103,153-154,229
sociobiology see also typology
biopower 174-176 ClifFord,J. 123,153-154,198
Bloch, M.113,117n7,134,136-137,145n2,155 Cognitive; anthropology 13,79,134—147;
Bloor,D.211-212 anthropology,critiques of 138,140,142;
Blumer,H.91-92 modules 138,141—142;relativism 136-137;
Boas, F. 12,13,18-19,28-31,32,37,38,53,68, science 139-140,188
149-150,155 colonialism see also critique, postcolonial;
body 13,101,102,166,174-175,175, anthropology as'handmaiden of colonialism'
185-194,215,227,237,243,244;gendered 51-53,109-110,153-154;as an object of
199-201; hexis 102;techniques of the anthropological study 106n8,108,109,
see habitas; v. mind 187-189;see also 111-116,117n6,121-123,163,165-167,
embodiment 173,187;ignored in anthropological analysis
Bonnemère,P. 239 51-53,97-98,104-105,109-110; mid-
Bourdieu,P.6,14,74,91,92,99-105,126,186, century anthropologists criticai of 52,53,
189,192,216 117n6,127; pre-colonial societies 83,
Boyer,P. 139-140,145n5,145n6,145n7 152-153;shaped anthropological knowledge
bricolage 113,114,118nl 1 23,35,47,51-53,80
Buck-Morss,S. 160,161,162,163,165-166 colour perception 134,144-145nl
Buddhism 140,143 Comaroff.J.6,113-114,117
Busby,C.243 ComarofF.J. L.6,117
Buder,J. 14,199-200,201 commodity 81,114;fetishism 114,161;see also
exchange,trade
Callon,M.210,216,218 communism 22,80-82,84-85,154,161,175;
Candea,M.8,129,209,221,225,239 see also'primitive', communism
capital 99-100,103-104;cultural 104-105; compai-ison 5,18-19,23,54,64,124—125,
symbolic 104-105 130-131,142-143,155,236,244-245;
capitalism 79-84,86,88,100,104-105, biological 19;Boasian critiques of 29-30;
161—164;cosmologies of 114;global Durkheimian-Maussian 33-35,37;evolutionist
108—109,112—113;late 185; non- 79,84,88; 18,23-28,35-37;in the anthropology of
pre- 80-86,104; proto- 86;and sexual ethics 73,178-179; sd-uctural-functionalist
repression 175-176 18-19,38,45-47,49,52
Carsten,J. 199-200,241 Comte,A.20,32
caste 85,93,97-98,110,117n5 concepts 1,12,14,236-246; as heuristics 219,
causality 82,138,149,175,217;see also 233; cognitive studies of 136,139-140;
interpretation, explanation V. things 213-215,228,232;see also
change 108-117,128;cultural 29,36,96-97, revolution, conceptua!
130;and embodiment 190-191,200-201; conduct 104,149,151,161,174, 177-181
ignored 39-41,49-52; in forms of ethics see also action
Index 249
consciousness 67.73—74, l()6n9, 109—110,114, description 3,14;'thick description'149-150;

135, 160-163. 185, 188-189, 196; false describing as doing 220—221,228—231;
see ideoIog>' V, explanation 5,39,68,198,122,217-220;
context 126, 218-220,238; contextualising see (liso comparison,and description
theory 3, 11, 51—54; cultural context 29-31, desire 175-181
142-143, 178-179,218-219; development 24;as ontogenesis 20-22,231;
decontextualising 18,46-47,54,117n5; political and economic 24,86,127,148,152,
social context 188,211—212 181,203;see also evolutionism,and
Cosmides, 1.. 137—138 development; progress; psychology,
cosmology 72,227,232,240,241 developmental
creativity 117n4, 199, 225,244 diachrony v. synchrony 10,40-41,50 61,74
crisis 108,128,239 .<ee also representadon,crisis of see also structure,and process
criticai theory 79, 159—172 scc tilso dialectic 82,100-102,113,115,160-162,168;
Frankflirt School dialectical image 162-164,166,168;
critique; cultural 159, 163; feniinist 6,50-51, dialectical materialism 105,161; negativa
112, 187, 195, 197-199, 218,220,221 n5; dialectics 163
Marxist 24,97-98,86-88;of critique dialogism 154
218—219;of the status quo 103; of theories dichotomy 20,50,60-61,73-74,161,
for'missing things out'3, 11,52—54; 186-188,196-197,209-210,217
postcolonial 1, 2,6,54,79, 154, 167, see also dualism, binary
203-204,218, 221 n5; see üIso sociology, difference 1,13,25,49,85,116,167; cultural
criticai; vvriting culture 130,143-144,153,155;different
Csordas,T. 186-189, 190, 191-192 conceptions of 162;inter-individual 50;
Cultural: evolution 23,80; logic 87,113—115; meaning created by a system of61-66;
materialism 89n3; studies 126, 153;traits 19, ontological 226-229;sexed and gendered
29—30,54, 110, 117n4;see also capital, 195-203;see also alterity
cultural; change, cultural; critique, cultural; diffiisionism 1,9,12,18-19,28-31,36,53-54,
difference, cultural; system 110-111;as critique ofevolutionism 28-29;
culture 1,10 , 11,13, 15n3,47,53-54,55nl0,87, contemporary relevance of31,54;enduring
89n6,92,94,96-99,102,109,130,148-158, influence 31;in tension vvith holism in Boas
178-179,182,195-205,211-213,215,216. 31;in the UK 32,36; more Darwinian than
218,226-229,237-240;and cognition 'Evolutionism'22,30;see also globalization;
135-144;and histor>' 108-118;and personality multi-sited ethnography
school 31;and the body 185—190;as a text discipline 173-175
150—151;association of men with 196—197; discourse 2-3,61,103,105,164,175-176,178,
Boasian conceptions of 19—20,28—31,149; 189,191-192,199-203,216;'universe of
contact 117n4,117n6,130; Geertzian human discourse' 150-152;v.ideology 175
conceptions 149—153; material culture 29; dispositions 100-102,105,138,141,174,
structuralist conceprions of60,64-68,71—75, 186,192
112—113, 130; V. society as object of divination 145,231-232
anthropology 18—20,38,48;see also biology, division oflabour see labour, division of
and culture; cultural; nature,and culture; domestic; mode of production see modes of
holism; ontology; relati\'ism; vvriting culture production; pets 65; v. public spheres 50,
102,195-196,198; v, vvild 197
Darvvin, C. 19,20-22,30,40,54,55,111 domination see inequality,oppression
Das.V. 110 Donham,D,85-87,118nl5
Daswani, G. 236, 240, 243 Douglas, M.79,238
data see ethnographic material doxa 103
death 2,21,42,70, 113, 115, 139,200; dualism 8,237,241,244 see also dichotomy,
of the subject 116 binary
deconstruction 116, 153, 168 Durkheim.E. 12,13,14,18,19,29,32-35,
Deleuze, G. 126, 175, 231 36-37,38-39,40,41,46,48,51,55,64,91,
descent see kinship, descent 134-135,140,145,148,212
Descola, P. 228-229 dwelling 190,192
250 index
economics 79-81,100,149;as a model for 200;events of 1968.79,86;'criticai events'

human action 92-101,103-105; micro- 94; 110;and structure 61,110-111,113-115
neo-classical 87;see also economy;formalist- evidence see ethnographic material
substantivist debates; game theory; rational evolution 1,5,9,12,18-28,30-37,45-46,49,
choice theory 52,53-55,64,68,80,82-85,88,105,
economy 36,44,79-89,103-104,122,130, 110—111,134—147,149;evolutionism as
133,145n2,148-149,155,198,217-218; already fimctionalist 22,25,33,54-55n2,
disembedded 104; economic determinism 55n8; evolutionism as social critique 22, 24;
87,88; market 68;see also economics, evolutionism, critiques of 28-30,32-33,40,
exchange, political economy 53,134; evolutionism, Darwinian 20—22,
education 104,151,176,199,203 54nl,55n8; evolutionism, politics of 23-24,
effervescence 34,55n9,135 53;and development 20-22,40; see also
embodiment 13,102,105,125,167,185-194, comparison, evolutionist; explanation,
242; critiques of 188-189,190-191; evolutionary Marxism,as evolutionism;
and dualism 187-189;see also body; progress
habitus exchange 36,75-76n5,80,84,86-87,95,100,
empire 109,114-116;British 51-53;97-98; 105,142,167,227,241—243;generalised 86;
111;Inner Asian 85;see also colonialism gift-exchange 10,34,37,100,105,242-243;
Engels, F. 20,24,89,160 see also trade, commodity, money,reciprocity
Englund,H. 118nl5,127-128,181,239,241 existentialism 79
epistemology see interprerivism; ontology; exogamy 66-67,83
philosophy,of science; positivism explanation 7,11,13,14,30,53,67-68,88,
Epstein,A.L. 124,127 100-102,105,116,209,211,213,217-220,
equality 83,196,204-205 224,228-229; evolutionary 25-28,134-135,
essentialism 99,186,201,231;strategic - 231 138-141,144;feminism and 195-196,200;
ethics: anthropology of 13,73-74,116-117, Marxist 81,82, 85,86,88,175;structural-
181;genealogy of 173,176-181;of fünctionalist 32-34,37-40,45,51,67,68;
anthropology 24,181,202; v. moral transactionalist 93-94,95-96,106n6;
codes 178 see also interpretation, v. explanation;
ethnicity see identity, ethnic description, v. explanation
ethnocentrism 97,196 exploitation 79,83,85,91,97,106n3m
Ethnographic fieldwork 35-38,121-133,161, 127,188
196; 19th century 29,35-6 38,134;and extended-case method 13,121,123-131;
openendedness 129-130;and the'armchair' limitations of 126
36,46-47,54,134; Malinowskian 32,35-37,
46,55nlO,124,153,156;single-sited 35-36; Fabian,J. 23-24,109
see also multi-sited ethnography Facebook 215,217
ethnographic material 5,35-37,60,64-68, fact:'social fact' 32,39,55nl2,91,134-135;
71-72,80-81,84-85,88,97,109-110,125, constructed/performed 160-161,197-198,
144,190-191,197-199;see also theory,and 199,201,211-218,230-232;see also
ethnography ethnographic material
Ethnographic writing 7,35-37,109-110 false consciousness see ideology
129-131,153-157,163-164,197-199,205; fascism 111,117n8,160
authorship in 123,154—156;edited volumes femininity/masculinity 65,70-71,197,204
46-47;ethnographic present 109; feminism 1,10,13,16,79,88,185,187,
monographs 7,19,35-37,46-47,152 195-208,227;'awkward relationship' with
etlmologie 18,20 anthropology 196-197,200-203,205;and
ethnomethodology 91-92,99-100 evolutionism 24,200; and postcolonial
EuroAmerican see the West, western critique 203-204; and universalism 195-197,
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 10,15n4,41-45,46, 200,203; see also anthropology of vvomen,
48-49,50,53,56,93,98-99,105,111-112, gender,explanation, and feminism
117n6,135,148,156,212 feuding 41-45,53,
event 13,61.92,108,110,113-116,117n6, fieldsites see ethnographic fieldwork
121-123,124-125,126,127,129,150-151, Firth, R.50,80,88,89,92,105-106
Index 251
theJlâueur 162-163 Goffinan,E.94-95

formalist-siibstantivist debates 94, 104 sce also Goody,J. 41,47,112,117n7,117n9
economy Gow,P.74,113
Fortes, M.40, 41, 46,47,53, 56,83,87,89, 111, Graeber,D.88,224,225,232
122,131,236 Gramsci.A-112,114,118
Foucault, M. 13, 14, 73—74, 118nl3, 153,156, Great Transformarion 117
173-182, 185, 187, 200, 216,221n3. 221n6 Guthrie,S. 139,145n4
Frankfurt School 1,4, 13, 159-172; critiques
of 159; historical context ot 160; misused Habermas.J. 159,160
168; not deconstructive 168; relation to habitus 102,105.164,186,216
Marxisni 160-161; also criticai theory Hacking,1.217
Franklin,S. 199, 200 Haddon.A.C.32,35,37,134
Frazer.J. G. 33,64, 167 Halbwachs,M.111
freedom 1, 14,51,97, 176-181 Haraway,D. 187,218,220
Freud, S. 160, 165, 175—176 Hegel,G.89,125,160-161
Friedman,J. 86,89n3, 117n5 Heidegger, M.126,186,190
function 12,21,25,32-56,68,83-84,97,102, Hennion,A.210
104, 105, 136, 138, 143; biological notion of hermeneurics see interpretation
21,32,55n8; in structuralism 67-68; Herzfeld, M.105n8,117n2,118nll
Radcliffe-Brown v. Malinowski on heteroglossia 154
definition of 38-39; soe also evolutionism, heuristics 8,12,14,50-51,75,94,219,225,
functionalism, structural-flmctionalism 228-229,231-233;and politics 52-53,225
functionalisin 1,6,9, 12, 15, 18-19,32-37, history 13,48-49,54,79,108-120,121-126,
53-54,79,83,97-98, 110-111,117n6, 148, 128-129,159-168,158;historicity 110-113,
175;and history 33—34,37, 110—111;as 116,186,189-190,192;and authority
more Darwinian than'Hvolutionism' 22; 108-110;and language 61;and myth 109,
critiques of 31, 49,92 see also structural- 111,114-116,117n6,118nll;angel of 168;
functionalism, critiques of; Durkheimian anthropological neglect of33-34,37,38-41,
32—35, 148; Malinowskian 35—37;split with 47-49,74,97,109-110,186;conjectura]
structural-functionalism 37—39;teleology in 110; natural 134—144 see also change;cultura,
32; see also explanation,structural- and history; evolutionism; Marxism;
functionaJist; structural-functionalism functionalism,and history; theory, how and
why to study the history of; time;sexuahty,
game-theory 93—94,97,99,101,106n7 history of
see also ratiotial choice theory,economics Hobsbawm,E.80-81,85,110
Garfinkel, H.92 Holbraad, M.224,225,229-233
Geertz. C.5, 14,31,79, 113, 123,131, holism 19.30-31,34,36-37,39,44,46-48,
135-138,143, 148-157,224 121,129-130,131n6,149-151,154,
GelJ.A. 117nl, 137, 209 201-202,238-240 see also cultura; rebtivism
Gellner.E. 112, 117, 155 honour 41—42,69,101
gender 13,49-51,65-66,79,84, 102,110,113, Horkheimer,M.160-161
138,187, 191, 195-205, 211-212,216. hot V. cold societies 113
218-219,221 n5, 226, 239;studies 14,199, human rights see rights, human
201-202; V. sex 187, 195-196, 199-200; humanism 26,82
see also sex, sexuality humanitarianism 127-128
generaiisation 5,38—39,48—49,54, 195—197, Humphrey,C.87,116,243
199 hunting 68-71,167
geography 23,29,85,88, 168 Husserl,E. 186
gift see exchange, gift-exchange
globalization 31,54, 112, 126-128, 131,154, Ibn Khaldun 112
164,216,220; see also capitalism, global ideahsm 82,155,186,232
Gluckman, M. 15, 49, 122-124, 125-126,127, identity 1,116,166,203,239-240;ethnic
129,130, 131 96-97,99,110,154;gendered 197,199-200.
Godelier, M.84—85,87 204—205,231,239;see also class, race
256 Index
semiorics see structuralism; system,ofsigm sociology 14,18,32—47,55nl2,81,91-92,

the senses 125,143,160,190-192 94-95,99-100,109,124,134-135,148-149,
sex 50,138,187,195-196,199-200;sexuality 152-153,160,209-221,239;'criticai
21,55nll,68-71,84,128,173,175-181, sociology' 217-221; of science see science,
221n5;see also gender, v. sex; revolution, anthropology of;sociology of knowledge
sexual see social, construction of knowledge
shamanism 165-166,232 sorcery 167
Shapin,S. 217,219 soul 175,178,191,237
sign 13,63-75,118nll,135,178,191-192; sovereignty 97,174,176-177
see also system,ofsigns soviet see communism
signifier/signified see sign Spencer, H.20-22,25,28,30,33,54-55
situational analysis 121-122,127,131n3 see also spirit possession 165-166
extended-case method stability see social; equilibrium
slavery 80,83,88,179-181;slave trade, North Stasch,R. 28,53,145,244
Atlantic 109 state 21,24,81,83-85,97-98,104-105,
social; socialisation 102,144,186,196-197; 152-153,173-174,177;'theater state'
sociality 142,241-244; bandits 80;cohesion 152-153;of emergency 168; see also society,
35; construction of knowledge 15n3,34-35, stateless
41,44,211-212; disjunction/conjunction 45; state socialism see communism
drama 121,124-125,130; equilibrium 19, statistics 24-28,30
40-45,47,97-99,111-112,117n6; status see social,status/role
evolution 20-28;see also evolutionism; Stocking, G.'W. 10,19,35,52,55nlO,58
formation 82-86;group 29,40-46,55nl4, Stoller, P. 167
64-65,68,75-76n5,85,93-94,98-99,124, Strassler, K.109,117
131nl,135,142,211,219;interaction strategy 92-106
39-40,91-92,94-99,130,136,142-144, Strathern, M.8,10,12,29,115,116,129,131,
150,242;order 34,41-45,49,75-76n5, 196-197,199,202-203,205,209,221,
91-92,102,112-113,117n6,186,196; 226-227,228,231
organisation 19,23,36,53,81,84,86,92, structural-functionalism 1,4,12—13,15n4,
212,213;Relaõons Department 148; 15n5 18-19,32,37-47,53-54,75-76n5,
relationships 70,80,82,84—85,87,91-92, 91-92,121-122; and colonialism 51-53;and
94,124,135,142,177,236-245;statics v. history 38-41,47-49,110-111; as a
social dynamics 40—41;status/role 39-40, heuristic 50-52;as critique of Malinowskian
49-50,70,94-99,105,106n7,196, functionalism 32; critiques of 47-53,91-92,
112-113,180,195-197,199,203-204, 127,131nl; narrowing down the notion of
237,239;see also action,social; change, function 39;split with functionalism 37—39;
social; context,social; fact,social; see also functionalism; explanation,
institutions,social; network,social; structural-fimctionalist; function; structure
reproduction,social and biological; structuralism 1, 5,9,13,14,35,55nl2,56nl7,
structure,social;system 60-78,79,81-82,86,100-102,105,110,
society 1,21-22,32-35,38-41,48-49,74, 112-114,196,225,238-239; analysis of
82-88,109,112-113,122,130,134-135, totemism 64-66;and functional explanation
138,217-218,240-245;original aíBuent 49,67-68;and history 74,112-114 see also
society 114;simple v. complex society diachrony v. synchrony;and
33-34,111 see also'primitive'; capitalist, overinterpretation 71-72;and practice
pre-; small-scale 127-128,130;stateless 72-75;continuing relevance of60,72;
society 41-45,3-94,97-98,106; critiques of72-75,81-82,100,130,
urban society 127; v. culture as object 185-186,188,190,191; neo-Marxist
of anthropology 18-20,38,48;see critique of81-82; roots in structural
also nature,and culture/society; linguistics 60-66; v. conscious meanings
'primitive',society; social, group;system, 67-68;see also Levi-Strauss; structure,
social langue v. parole
sociobiology 79 structure 12-13,55nl2,56nl7;'of the
sociocultural see society, culture conjuncture' 115;'structured — predisposed
Index 257
to flmction as scructuring 100-102, 105 200-201,217,220-221.228-233;and

see also habitus; and practicc 61,73-74; and method 5-6,19—20,35—37,121—133;
subjectivir>' 67—68,73; class 99—102; kinship categorisation into schools,styles, paiadigms
see systein, kinship; linguistic structiire 5,8-12; distinctively anthropological 14-15;
60—64.67; of anthropological theor)- 15n4, doing away \vith 2,7—8;how and why to
237—245; powcr/political structure 51—52, study the history oftheory 2-15,53-54;
97-98, 179;seiniotic see systcm, ofsigns; V. practice 99-100;see also ethnographic
social — 15n4, 33,37—49,55nl 4,80,89n5, material; ethnographic fieldwork
91-94, 105, 106n7. 122, 124-125,130, 177, theory of mind 141-145;cultural variations in
189, 213,216-217; see also agency, and 142-144
structure; event, and structure; infrastructure; Théry, 1.238,240-241,244,245
process, and structure; structural- third world 203
functionalisni; structuralism; system; time 61,74,108-118;and cognitive universais
superstructure; violence, structural 136-137;clock time 109,lll,216;cyclical
subaltern 114, 118nl3, 231 time 136-137; mythic time 109,111,
subject 73-74, 114, 174-181, 187-189,216, 114-116;see also change,event,
237—243;'death of the subject' 116;see also evolutionism, history, process,temporality
individual, person, self ToobyJ. 137-138
subjectivity 71,73,91, 113, 161, 198,220 Toren,C 186,189 191-192,239
sufFering, anthropology of 155 Torres Straits Expedition 35,38,134,
superstructure 81-87 144-145nl
surrealisni 163-164 torture 174
symbol see capital, symbolic; culture; totemism 10,18,56nl7,64-67,228-229
interpretation; language; sign trade unionism 123,127
symbolic anthropology' see interpretivism tradition, traditional 103,108,106n6,110,152,
symbolic interactionism 91-92, 105—106nl 186,237-238;'traditional anthropology'as
system: capitalist system 175—176;cultural object of critique 126
system 155; kinship system 24,28,42—46 transaction 68-70,95 see also exchange,
see (ílso kinship; laboratory as a system of transactionalism
literary inscription 212-213; legal system 23, transactionalism 1,13,50-51,92-99,105,125;
174; of signs 13, 49,56nl7,60-68,72-75, 'generative models'92;and colonialism
114; of thought see discourse; political 97-98;and ethnocentrism 97-98;and
system 42-44,46,86,93-94,97-99, history 97-99;and the individual 94,98;
152—153;social system 37—38,48—49,53, critiques of97-99
80-86,92-94,97-99, 101-104,117n6,122, Trautmann,T. R.19,22,23
178; V. fragment 163—164; world system Traweek,S. 212
117n2, 128; see also culture; habitus; kinship; tribe 23,39-40,42-43,83,98,110,127
politics; society; structure trust 95-96
Turner,T.88
tabula rasa see mind,as blank slate Turner,V. 124-126,130,150
taking seriously 7, 185, 220—221,229-231 Tylor, E.B.20,22,23,24-28,29-30,33.36,
Taussig,M. 161, 163,165-167, 168 45-46,55,64,150
techniques of the body see habitus typology 22,49,116,229 see also classificatíon
techniques of the self see self, techniques of
technology 36,80-81,86, 104, 111, 165-166, unilineal descent groups see lineages
196,201—202,214—217,221n4;science and universal 30,36,46,72,150,155,185-187,
technology studies 210, 221 n2 192,203, 237; universalism of cognitive
teleology: ethical 178; evolutionist 20—22,32; anthropology 134-144; universality of
functionalist 32,48; Marxist 80—82 economic behaviour 92,94,98; women's
temporality 109-110, 128, 162; see also history, subordination as a universal 195-197,200;
time see also rational choice theory
Terray, E.83 'Us v.Tliem' as an anthropological trope 5-6,
theory 4—8;'high theory' 125-126; and 22,34,111,117n8,151-152,166.202-203,
ethnography, 5-8, 14—15,47,80, 168, 220-221,226-231
258 Index
value 36,70,88,92-99,104—105;values 140, 236-245;as object of anthropological

149-151,178,237-239,241;exchange value study 111,211,220-221 see also science,
81;labour theory of81,84;semanric anthropology of; contemporary non-
see system,ofsigns; use value 81,164 Western peoples portrayed as timeless 18,20,
VanVelsen,J. 124,125-126,129,131n3 23-24,41,111,200; Educated, Industrialised,
Verran, H.210 Rich and Democratic(WEIRD) 142;
verstehen see interpretation imagined as apex of progress 21-22,24,
Vüaça,A. 190-191,192 32-34,203-204;see also modem; non-
violence 41-45,52,52,103,114,128,174; Western; non-Western women and
structural violence 116 feminism 203-205;see rt/so'primitive';
Viveiros de Castro,E. 167,190,210,224-229, 'Us v.Them'as an anthropological
231 trope
Willerslev, R.167
Wagner,R.226-228,230,231,233,241 witchcraft 41,44-45,53,124,211-212,
Wallerstein,1.117 229-231
war 41,127 Wittgenstein, L. 148,150,155
Weber,M.13,14,29,34,91,104-105,112, Wolf,E.24,41,80,86.109
135,148-149 Woolgar,S. 210-214,218,220-221
welfare state 96,174 Worsley,P. 87,89n5
Werbner,R.117n3,123,125,243 Writing Culture 1,7,13,31,123,126,
West:Western political interventionism 52-53, 153-156,226-227; critiques of 154-156,
117n8,203-204;anthropology challenging 198
Western assumptions and concepts 6-7,30,
34-35,190-191,196-197,202,227-229, Yarrow,T. 239,241
'In this highly original contribution, leading anthropological scholars from
the University of Cambridge provide a new and compelling approach to the
history of anthropological ideas ....Insightful, succinct but also consistently
challenging, I expect that these essays will inspire students of anthropology
for years to come.'
Adam Reed, University oi St Andrews, UK
'A useful antidote to the presentism of much current anthropological

theorizing, this rich and variegated collection - which takes account of some
of the deepest roots and freshest sprigs - especially reflects the influential
view of the discipline from the venerable Cambridge tradition, which displays
in these pages an impressively global and historically comprehensive reach.'
Michael Herzfeld, Harvard University, USA
This book presents an overview of important currents of thought in social

and cultural anthropology, from the 19th century to the present. It introduces
readers to the origins, context and continuing relevance of a fascinating and
exciting kaleidoscope of ideas that have transformed the humanities and
social sciences, and the way we understand ourselves and the societies we
live in today.
Each chapter provides a thorough yet engaging introduction to a particular

theoretical school, style or conceptual issue. Together they build up to a
detailed and comprehensive critica Iintroduction to the most salient areas of
the field. The introduction reflects on the substantive themes which tie the
chapters together and on what thevery notions of 'theory' and 'theoretical
school' bring to our understanding of anthropology as a discipline.
The book tracks a core lecture series given at Cambridge University and is
essential reading for ali undergraduate students undertaking a course on
anthropological theory or the history of anthropological thought. It will also
be useful more broadly for students of social and cultural anthropology,
sociology, human geography and cognate disciplines in the social sciences
and humanities.
Matei Candea is a Lecturer in the Department of Social Anthropology at the

University of Cambridge, UK.
ANTHROPOLOGY
Cover image: Berlin auf Arbeit © Pedro Stoichita

Schools and Styles of Anthropological Theory II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schools and Styles of Anthropological Theory II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schools and Styles of Anthropological Theory II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edited by Matei Candea

Matei Candea is a Lecturer in the Department ofSocial Anthropology at the University

Edited by Matei Candea

The right of Matei Candea to be identified as the author of the editorial

Ali rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

Introduction: Echoes of a conversation 1

1 Severed roots: Evolurionism, difFusionism and

3 Marxism and neo-Marxism 79

4 From transacrionalism to practice theory 91

5 Anthropology and history 108

6 From the extended-case method to multi-sited ethnography

7 Cognitive anthropology as epistemological critique 134

8 Interpretive cultural anthropology: Geertz and his

9 The Frankfurt School, criticai theory and anthropology 159

10 The anthropological lives of Michel Foucault 173

11 From 'the body'to 'embodiment', with help from phenomenology 185

12 Feminist anthropology and the quesrion of gender 195

13 No actor, no network, no theory:Bruno Latour's anthropology

14 The ontological turn: School or style? 224

15 Persons and partible persons 236

1.1 Residence and avoidance 27

What ís this book?

On learning to see theory

VIews from Cambrídge?

recently noted, anthropologists' still-frequent reference to an 'us' position rcmains an

discipline as a succession of dominant genres of ethnographic writing, with cmphasis on

frequendy rebarbative atui prctcnciousjargon-ridden \vriting.Today,most anthropologists

himself as haviiig succcedcd in inventing a distincrive new way of writing anthropology.

The Frankfurt School, criticai

Outiining criticai theory

'Benjamin's history', Uros Cvoro (2008:92-93) explains:

Whereas advocates of'postmodern'ethnography(Kõpping 2005;Soukup 2012) and some

Still,Taussig was more interested in the'capture'of this movement by arguably anthropol-

Forming an importam part of contemporary anthropological studies of embodiment,the

Prospects and períls

Abélès,M.2008.Anthropologie,anticipation,utopie. Cahiers (Panthropologic sociale 4: Walter Beitjamiif,

Appadurai, A. 1996. Modmiit)' ot Ltnj^e: Cultural Ditueusions in Globalization. Is/úrmespohs, MN:

Selected further reading

The anthropological líves

Although not hiniselfiin anthropologist,the French scholar Michel Foucault(1926-1984),

thoroughly mechaniciil rc-cngincering of the subject, a more thoroughgoing and total

according to this'hypothesis',that the liberation ofsexual desire - anything and everything

responsibility for ourselves, because it involves accepting an alvvays-alrcady given fact of

Foucault'5 principal books

From'the body* to embodiment

One of the best known introducrions to embodiment in social anthropology carne

Perceptions are always enibodied. grounded in a particular embodied standpoint. This

Femíníst anthropology and

Can there be a feminist ethnography?

feminist ethnograpliics,... cthnographics that explore what work,marriage, mother-

Indeed,in an cxpiicit ctforr to rcspond to feminist critiques of objecdvity and representa-

Engagíng with theories of performativíty

Subsequendy, anthropologists were accused of having 'assumed the existence of natural

Anthropoiogy and feminísnn:An awkward relationship?

contraception, nianimograms, breast reconstructive surgery, infant formulas, breast

shelters,legal aid,and numerous women's health,social and political organisations'(p.229).

contemporary concems. In different ways, Ifi Amadiume (1987; 1997), Oyèrónké

No actor, no network, no theory

Introductíon: Identífyíng ANT

ofANT,has charactcriscd hcr own work as'empirical philosophy'(2002:l).That works as