The iconoclastic Brazilian anthropologist and theoretician Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, well known in his discipline for helping initiate its “ontological turn,” offers a vision of anthropology as “the practice of the permanent decolonization of thought.” After showing that Amazonian and other Amerindian groups inhabit a radically different conceptual universe than ours—in which nature and culture, human and nonhuman, subject and object are conceived in terms that reverse our own—he presents the case for anthropology as the study of (...) such “other” metaphysical schemes, and as the corresponding critique of the concepts imposed on them by the human sciences. Along the way, he spells out the consequences of this anthropology for thinking in general via a major reassessment of the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss, arguments for the continued relevance of Deleuze and Guattari, dialogues with the work of Philippe Descola, Bruno Latour, and Marilyn Strathern, and inventive treatments of problems of ontology, translation, and transformation. Bold, unexpected, and profound, Cannibal Metaphysics is one of the chief works marking anthropology's current return to the theoretical center stage. (shrink)

Résumé Comment peut-on être occidental? Les Amérindiens ne connaissent pas notre dualisme nature-culture, et ils s’en passent fort bien. Ils pensent et vivent la continuité.

In this dialogue with Yuk Hui, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro discusses his work on the Amerindian perspectivism, multinaturalism; the relation between nature, culture and technics in his ethnographic studies; as well as the necessity of a non-anthropocentric definition of technology. He also discusses a haunting futurism of ecological crisis and automation of the Anthropocene, and explores a “strategic primitivism” as survival tool.

Originally published in 2004 in the Common Knowledge symposium “Talking Peace with Gods,” this article elaborates the nature and consequences of the perspectivist cosmologies of Amerindian societies. Contemporary Western cosmologies regard humans as ex-animals who became differentiated from other nonhuman species through the acquisition of advanced cognitive capacities. Amerindian cultures, by contrast, regard animals as ex-humans who became differentiated from both modern humans and other animal species via a series of physical adaptations. Underneath these physical differences, both humans and nonhumans (...) retain a shared human soul; what is more, each species perceives its own kind as human and all other kinds—including humans—as animals. Viveiros de Castro distinguishes this “perspectivism” from relativism: whereas Western relativism assumes multiple valid cultural models, Amerindian perspectivism holds that human and nonhuman species possess a common values system and cultural framework. While this commonality is ordinarily obscured by biologically grounded, perceptual differences, the gap in perspective may be bridged by shamans, whose gift of adopting nonhuman subjectivities enables them to see other species as they see themselves—namely, as humans partaking in human culture. Perspectivism influences both the practices that Amerindian peoples adopt toward nonhuman species and their attitudes toward other human groups, especially in the context of warfare. The Amerindian warrior’s capacity to overcome an enemy ultimately depends on a shaman-like entry into the subjectivity of another: rather than denying the personhood of his enemy, the Amerindian warrior must acknowledge the affinity between them. (shrink)

The article assumes that the expression “comparative relativism”—the title of the Common Knowledge symposium in which the essay appears—is neither tautological nor oxymoronic. Rather, the author construes the term as an apt synthetic characterization of anthropology and illustrates that idea by means of four quotations, taken from authors as different as Richard Rorty and David Schneider, Marcel Mauss and Henri Michaux. The quotations can be said to “exemplify” anthropology in terms that are interestingly (and diversely) restrictive: some of them amount (...) to extrinsic negations of anthropology that would paralyze it; others suggest intrinsic negativities that would propel it. All of the passages chosen evoke the idea of belief, which is profoundly implicated, in all possible senses (and especially the worse ones), in the majority of arguments that connect the themes of anthropology, comparison, and relativism. (shrink)

This piece is an answer to comments by Matei Candea, Debbora Battaglia, and Roy Wagner on the author's article, “Zeno and the Art of Anthropology.” Here Viveiros de Castro focuses on the relation between exo- and endo-anthropology, on the conditions for the conceptual imagination of the other, on the distinction between minor and royal (or state) science, and on the precise meaning of the characterization of anthropology as a theory of the “ontological autodetermination of the world's peoples.”.

This introduction to “Anthropological Philosophy: Symposium on an Unanticipated Conceptual Practice” comprises a brief history of attitudes among anthropologists toward the philosophical field of ontology, and attitudes among professional philosophers toward the kinds of alien and marginal thinking with which anthropology is concerned. After the narrative reaches what has been called the “ontological turn” in anthropology, which is generally assumed to represent the current moment in relations between the disciplines, the author discloses the recent emergence of an unexpected cultural practice: (...) a hybrid of anthropology and philosophy that takes metaphysics, as distinct from ontology, as both its object and its method. The distinction between metaphysics and ontology is crucial to this new “intellectual space” because, while ontology is an unconscious possession of any people, metaphysics is a demanding speculative discipline whose becoming an object of anthropology suggests that indigenous peoples consciously deal with questions about what is real and what is not in ways so impressive and sophisticated that they can be compared with the efforts of credentialed philosophers. In this emergent conceptual practice, moreover, the work of academic philosophers is open to elaboration and correction in response to the findings of tribal and Western marginal thinkers. Among the developers of anthropological philosophy are said to be the Brazilian anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, the French philosopher Patrice Maniglier, and the other contributors to this symposium, whose articles the author goes on, in this context, to describe and assess. (shrink)

This introduction to the Common Knowledge symposium titled “Comparative Relativism” outlines a variety of intellectual contexts where placing the unlikely companion terms comparison and relativism in conjunction offers analytical purchase. If comparison, in the most general sense, involves the investigation of discrete contexts in order to elucidate their similarities and differences, then relativism, as a tendency, stance, or working method, usually involves the assumption that contexts exhibit, or may exhibit, radically different, incomparable, or incommensurable traits. Comparative studies are required to (...) treat their objects as alike, at least in some crucial respects; relativism indicates the limits of this practice. Jensen argues that this seeming paradox is productive, as he moves across contexts, from Lévi-Strauss's analysis of comparison as an anthropological method to Peter Galison's history of physics, and on to the anthropological, philosophical, and historical examples offered in symposium contributions by Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Marilyn Strathern, and Isabelle Stengers. Comparative relativism is understood by some to imply that relativism comes in various kinds and that these have multiple uses, functions, and effects, varying widely in different personal, historical, and institutional contexts that can be compared and contrasted. Comparative relativism is taken by others to encourage a “comparison of comparisons,” in order to relativize what different peoples—say, Western academics and Amerindian shamans—compare things “for.” Jensen concludes that what is compared and relativized in this symposium are the methods of comparison and relativization themselves. He ventures that the contributors all hope that treating these terms in juxtaposition may allow for new configurations of inquiry. (shrink)

This paper explores the contrast between two meanings of thinking: (i) one implied by the Cartesian and Kantian philosophy, the two thinkers that have arguably the deepest influence on the constellation of Western philosophical problems and (ii) another implied by the philosophical-anthropological project of the Brazilian anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. The thesis here defended is that, in the Cartesian and Kantian philosophy, thinking is related to ruling and legislating over the experience through concepts, while in (...) class='Hi'>Viveiros de Castros' theoretical enterprise, thinking is rather to explore the limits of conceptual constructions when confronted with the experience of alterity. (shrink)

ABSTRACT “Speculative cannibalism” names here some kind of transcendental logic that only works through figuration, in the specific form of an analogical matrix. This article tracks these configurations in the philosophical works of Jacques Derrida and in the anthropological foundations of Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. This article states that as transcendental, this analogical matrix is the condition of possibility of the meaning of alterity and difference—but as analogical works as a transcategorial function that is neither beyond nor (...) before experience, only irreducible to a given explanatory category of judgment or being. This function is figurative, that is, constitutes meaning by an operation of comparison in Viveiros de Castro’s nomenclature, and of supplementation, in Derrida’s terminology. In both cases this function posits difference or equivocation as the main operator. Finally, this article argues that even though they are very similar speculative proposals, analogy works a bit differently for deconstruction and for post-structural anthropology: for the first, analogy is based on a supplementary logic that is only taken to be a formal operation, while for the former, analogy it is treated not only as a formal operation, but also as fixed within the material categories of Amerindian thought. (shrink)

In 1996, the anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro chose a sentence by Gilles Deleuze as the epigraph for an article, published in the Brazilian journal Mana, on Amerindian perspectivism. (A modified version of the article appeared in English two years later, in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.) Since then, Deleuze's name has appeared often in works about perspectivism, but Chamois's new book is the first monograph to focus on perspectivism and Deleuze. Among the most important (...) contributions of Chamois's analysis is to draw our attention to a little-known passage in a course, “Truth and Time,” that Deleuze taught in 1983 (and that is available for listening online). In it, he criticizes the example of the cube used as a paradigm, at least since Edmund Husserl's day, to conceptualize what a perspective is. It is impossible to see all six faces of a cube at the same time; thus, to “intuit” the cube as a cube, we must add to our own perception of a profile of the cube more possible points of view on it. The problem with this example and description is that it takes for granted that the subject already knows what she needs to see (a cube).Inspired, however, by the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, Deleuze holds that each perception is an invitation to other perceptions: “To perceive is to become capable of perceiving more and more things that were initially not perceived” (percevoir, c'est devenir apte à percevoir de plus en plus de choses qui d'abord n’étaient pas perçues). Deleuze contrasts the “spatial” or “frozen” notion of perspective to the “temporal perspective” that he seeks to emphasize: “It's time that acts as perspective” (C'est le temps qui agit comme perspective). The question, therefore, at the heart of Deleuze's perspectivism is how a perspective changes over time. Chamois goes through the early texts of Deleuze to show how the idea of the temporal perspective emerged from the concept of the structure Autrui. The “structure-Other” is best exemplified by someone else's emotive face—the frightened face of my friend, for instance. If I perceive that face while, say, I am laughing, another possible world would slip into my own: a frightening world penetrates my humorous one, and perhaps I should turn my head to see what danger may be en route. As in the case of the cube, my own limited perception is supplemented by others’ limited perceptions. The object of perception in this case, however, is not presupposed to be stable (the world is changing), and what I am about to see is not known in advance.But what, precisely, in the face of the other must I notice to become aware of the world she perceives? Deleuze does not explore that question in any detail, but Chamois reviews recent anthropological and psychological research that supplies some elements of a response. To confront the writings of Deleuze with relevant scientific data is fruitful. I must admit, though, that I was a bit embarrassed by the framing of the discussion: Chamois presents Deleuze's concepts as hypotheses demanding verification that they are “corroborated by the facts.” For Deleuze, concepts are inseparable from percepts and affects; as opposed to a hypothesis, a concept is true not because it correlates to a set of relevant facts but because it helps us to perceive other aspects of the world (percept) and induces us to act better (affect). Thus, the minute and rewarding analysis of Chamois should be complemented with an assessment of what we learn to focus on and of how we change our actions thanks to the perspectivism of Deleuze—in contrast to other forms of perspectivism (or indeed to other cosmologies). (shrink)

The end of the world is a seemingly interminable topic; at least, of course, until it happens. Environmental catastrophe and planetary apocalypse are subjects of enduring fascination and, as ethnographic studies show, human cultures have approached them in very different ways. Indeed, in the face of the growing perception of the dire effects of global warming, some of these visions have been given a new lease on life. Information and analyses concerning the human causes and the catastrophic consequences of the (...) planetary crisis have been accumulating at an ever-increasing rate, mobilising popular opinion as well as academic reflection. In this book, philosopher Deborah Danowski and anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro offer a bold overview and interpretation of these current discourses on the end of the world, reading them as thought experiments on the decline of the West's anthropological adventure; that is, as attempts, though not necessarily intentional ones, at inventing a mythology that is adequate to the present. This work has important implications for the future development of ecological practices and it will appeal to a broad audience interested in contemporary anthropology, philosophy, and environmentalism. (shrink)

Estamos inseridos numa sociedade marcadamente comunicativa. O progresso, as novas tecnologias, o avanço da ciência, a cultura e os costumes, são os grandes fomentadores desse “admirável mundo novo”, que ainda estamos aprendendo a conviver. E nesse aprendizado, algumas lacunas na própria comunicação têm deixado apreensivos pensadores modernos e a sociedade. Isso porque uma tese cada vez mais é difundida sem encontrar resposta: numa época na qual as pessoas possuem diversos mecanismos de comunicação, por que as pessoas se comunicam menos?Este artigo, (...) portanto, pretende apontar elementos que confirmem, ou não, essa preocupação. E mais: quer indicar uma possível resposta pautada na ética como forma de humanizar as relações comunicacionais entre as pessoas. Para tanto, baseio-me em documentos eclesiásticos recentes, como o “Diretório de Comunicação da Igreja no Brasil” e a mensagem do Santo Padre para o “Dia Mundial das Comunicações Sociais”, apresentada no ano corrente, além de utilizar autores das áreas de comunicação e de ética. (shrink)

In this paper, I engage with the motif of “the pluriverse” such as it has increasingly been used in the past few years in several strands of critical humanities pertaining to the so-called “ontological turn”: science and technology studies (Bruno Latour, Isabelle Stengers), critical geography and political ontology (Mario Blaser), cultural anthropology (Marisol de la Cadena, Arturo Escobar, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro), decolonial thought (Walter Mignolo), or posthuman feminism (Donna Haraway). These various iterations of the figure of (...) the pluriverse constitute a loose network of textual traces, a supposedly new scene for ‘humanities’, organized around what is understood as a pluralistic ontology. In political terms, the discourse of the pluriverse presents itself as a strategic response to the violence of universalism. It advocates for a multiversal ethics, a pluriversal cosmopolitics based on interspecies and multi-natural kinships, and more aware of the multiplicity of worlds and world-making practices that make up the post-globalization scene. Based on readings of Bruno Latour, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Arturo Escobar and Marisol de la Cadena among others, I argue that the notion of pluriversality remains self-contradictory and self-defeating as long as it relies on an ontological representation of world/worlds in the form of copresence. Drawing on Derrida’s deconstruction of the concept of world (cosmos, mundus) in his late writings, I propose to think an exorbitant plurality, before the pluriverse and before being. Beyond ontological pluralism, Derrida’s “infinity of untranslatable worlds” also signifies an irreducible interruption, the end of the world, of any “world-in-common”, thus raising the stakes for the ethical demand towards the other. (shrink)

These comments on Eduardo Viveiros de Castro's article, “Zeno and the Art of Anthropology,” emphasize, first, his engagement with ideas of Gilles Deleuze that open to the political dimension of Amerindian perspectivism and to a “multinatural” understanding of human-to-environment relations; these form the foundation of postdevelopment action in this part of the world and orient actors' “postures of attention” to power relations. Second, this commentary raises questions concerning arrows—archetypal of the protentive element of Amerindian “speculative ontology” and, (...) as such, symbolic vehicles of a hopeful environmental consciousness and activism. The interesting point of arrows in this context is that their protention can and must take into account both forward- and also backward-looking time, in order to fulfill their promise of finding their mark. The matter of their intended effectiveness being sharply focused on the figures of their human sources, parabolic course, and targets, both reversals of direction and the ground they would traverse can be lost sight of. Ironically, focusing on figures invites attention to their backgrounds: expanses of earth or air and gaps between origin and contact can remind us, for example, of all that can interfere with or defeat intended goals, particularly in a lifeworld of multisited human and nonhuman agency. Overall, this response to Viveiros de Castro takes an aesthetico-political approach to his article. It comments on the important work of recognizing how uncemented values of Amerindians can be recombined with Western concepts to shape an ongoing “found object” relationship of Western and Amerindian intellectual traditions that is capable of addressing complexities of shifting power in modern times. (shrink)

« Entre Deleuze et Guattari, Clastres et Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, il sera question dans cet article de l’échange fécond entre philosophie et anthropologie. En 1972, Pierre Clastres trouve chez Deleuze et Guattari la théorie du marquage qui sera déterminante dans l’élaboration de sa thèse de la société-contre-l’État. Huit ans plus tard, ces derniers développent une théorisation du nomadisme dans Mille plateaux où tient une place importante la thèse de l’anthropologue. Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, (...) fin lecteur de Mille plateaux, y puise pour sa part des outils conceptuels, notamment le concept de devenir, lui permettant de dépasser le clivage entre nature et culture en anthropologie et développer une interprétation du perspectivisme et du cannibalisme amazonien. Il relit en retour Clastres pour décentrer la thèse de la société-contre-l’État de son “sociocentrisme” et l’ouvrir à une cosmopolitique “par-delà nature et culture” qui se dessine clairement à l’horizon de Mille Plateaux. ». (shrink)

This comment on Eduardo Viveiros de Castro's article, “Zeno and the Art of Anthropology,” considers his definition of what it means to “take seriously” the world of the other, which he regards as the quintessential anthropological move. It means leaving the other's world in a state of suspended possibility, avoiding either belief or disbelief, assent or dissent. Candea's piece draws out the logic of the complementary and inverse move that grounds Viveiros de Castro's stance: “not (...) taking seriously” the world of the “same,” in this case, that of Western intellectuals such as Richard Rorty or Gilles Deleuze. Here “not taking seriously” involves (somewhat counterintuitively) argument, agreement and disagreement, rejection or adoption, of different visions. Candea identifies this controlled asymmetry between treatments of “us” and “them” as the major distinction between Viveiros de Castro's position and an older relativism, a difference that shields the former from the classic “self-refutation charge.” But this controlled asymmetry in turn raises the question of how we are to identify which visions we as anthropologists ought to take seriously and which we ought not to: where, in other words, do we draw the line, procedurally, between “us” and “them”? Candea argues that keeping this problematic and perhaps irresolvable question in view is the specific role of an “endo-anthropology” (the impossible figure of an “anthropology at home”), which is the necessary counterpart of Viveiros de Castro's “exo-anthropology.”. (shrink)

A cultura humana envolve uma rede complexa de dinâmicas e de trocas simbólicas. Entre as perspectivas teóricas que propiciam perscrutar liames dessas dinâmicas, possibilitando vislumbrar horizontes de tendências de novos paradigmas que se engendram nas fronteiras móveis de formas de representação da vida humana, entendemos que os Estudos Comparados de Literatura, por sua natureza interdisciplinar, possibilitam canais de comunicação entre várias disciplinas e áreas do conhecimento. Como espaço de reflexão, a perspectiva contemporânea desses estudos vem encorajando a tomada de consciência (...) da capacidade de a literatura ser uma forma de conhecimento da realidade e, por isso mesmo, encoraja a tomada de consciência do caráter pluralista que envolve o fenômeno literário, possibilitando relações interculturais, interdiscursivas e intersemióticas. O presente estudo com base nesses pressupostos, propõe, pelo diálogo possível entre a Literatura e a Antropologia, uma leitura da obra Onde a onça bebe água, tendo as representações presentes nas cosmologias amazônicas, como ponto de discussão e intercâmbio. Para tanto, serão utilizados estudos do antropólogo brasileiro Eduardo Viveiros de Castro e a produção literária que executa em parceria com Verônica Stigger. (shrink)

This article exploits the “binary license” offered by the title of the symposium in which it appears (“Comparative Relativism”) as a kind of promise of connection. The author suggests, however tentatively, that in the challenge of heterogeneity, fractality, perspective/-alism, and multiplicities lies the power of the forking pathway: the moment a relation is created through divergence. If we are invited—in the same breath—to consider forms of comparison and forms of relativism (dropping difference and similarity), we are also offered two paths, (...) one based on a world of singularities and multiplicities, and the other on a world of not-quite repetitions. The article asks if the binary is not essential to the epistemic work that Western (Euro-American) scholars might want to do, since we forever reinvent the divide between the modern and the post-/pre-modern. Strathern assumes the anthropologist's license to talk about concepts through persons, and begins by asking how Papua New Guineans who come together in a city compare themselves, and in contrast to ethnic comparisons elsewhere (e.g., contra Sarah Green's Balkan interactions). In talking about persons through concepts, it is worth asking what is entailed in relativizing one scholar's work through that of another. The author says that her “hunch” is that in both cases the analyst might wish to have the liberty of discerning—in the same breath—the multiplicities of what John Law and Annemarie Mol call perspectivalism (their very general alternative to comparison) and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro's radically divergent perspectivism (a self-contained, recursive and above all socially specific relativism). (shrink)

This catalogue essay is based on a series of interviews conducted by the authors with international scholars who were asked to reflect on Guattari's scattered comments concerning animism. Interviewees are: Eduardo Viveiros de Castro (anthropologist, Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro), Eric Alliez (philosopher, Paris), Jean Claude Polack (psychoanalyst, Paris), Barbara Glowczewski (anthropologist, Paris), Peter Pál Pelbart (philosopher, São Paolo) Janja Rosangela Araujo (master of Capoeira Angola, and professor, Salvador de Bahia) and Jean Jacques Lebel (artist, Paris). Animism (...) was thought by Guattari in relation to a number of themes and places in excess of religion and ritual but in the context of the shattering of capitalism. (shrink)

Problematizando a partir de las implicancias epistemológicas de la noción de punto vista, se realiza un análisis del trayecto filosófico del perspectivismo, adentrándose en la dimensión virtual de lo real, presente en el diálogo Leibniz-Nietzsche-Deleuze, que configura conceptualmente el perspectivismo amerindio desarrollado por los antropólogos Eduardo Viveiros de Castro y Tânia Stolze Lima en tanto lenguaje común de las cosmologías indígenas, expresadas en nuestros propios términos y traduciendo este ejercicio en la inversión de nuestros modos occidentales de (...) conocimiento. Palabras clave: Perspectivismo amerindio - Virtualidad - Epistemología. (shrink)

In a wide range of contemporary debates on Japanese cultures of technological practice, brief reference is often made to distinct Shinto legacies, as forming an animist substratum of indigenous spiritual beliefs and cosmological imaginations. Japan has been described as a land of Shinto-infused ‘techno-animism’: exhibiting a ‘polymorphous perversity’ that resolutely ignores boundaries between human, animal, spiritual and mechanical beings. In this article, we deploy instances of Japanese techno-animism as sites of theoretical experimentation on what Bruno Latour calls a symmetrical anthropology (...) of nature-cultures. In staging a dialogue between actor-network theory and Japanese techno-animism, we show how Shinto cosmograms provide an enlivening and alternative diffraction device on several of the ontological motifs manifested in Latour’s work. In particular, by mobilizing the territory of a ‘new’ animism debate in anthropology – manifested in the work of Philippe Descola and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro – we attempt to infuse Latourian ‘multinaturalism’ with new, other-than-western analytical energy. Extending actor-network theory, we argue, Shinto cosmograms offer an interesting vantage point for interpreting the immanent, affective, enchanting and enabling powers of non-humans in contributing to collective life. By thus broadening the ‘cosmopolitical’ imagination beyond Latour’s own European-Catholic frame of reference, Shinto techno-animism offers up a wider reflection on contemporary entanglements of science, politics, ecology and cosmos. This reflection, we conclude, opens up a new intellectual territory, allowing us to trace techno-animist streams of thinking both ‘East’ and ‘West’, beyond the confines of the scientific naturalism indigenous to European thinking. (shrink)

This introduction to the Common Knowledge symposium titled “Comparative Relativism” outlines a variety of intellectual contexts where placing the unlikely companion terms comparison and relativism in conjunction offers analytical purchase. If comparison, in the most general sense, involves the investigation of discrete contexts in order to elucidate their similarities and differences, then relativism, as a tendency, stance, or working method, usually involves the assumption that contexts exhibit, or may exhibit, radically different, incomparable, or incommensurable traits. Comparative studies are required to (...) treat their objects as alike, at least in some crucial respects; relativism indicates the limits of this practice. Jensen argues that this seeming paradox is productive, as he moves across contexts, from Lévi-Strauss's analysis of comparison as an anthropological method to Peter Galison's history of physics, and on to the anthropological, philosophical, and historical examples offered in symposium contributions by Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Marilyn Strathern, and Isabelle Stengers. Comparative relativism is understood by some to imply that relativism comes in various kinds and that these have multiple uses, functions, and effects, varying widely in different personal, historical, and institutional contexts that can be compared and contrasted. Comparative relativism is taken by others to encourage a “comparison of comparisons,” in order to relativize what different peoples—say, Western academics and Amerindian shamans—compare things “for.” Jensen concludes that what is compared and relativized in this symposium are the methods of comparison and relativization themselves. He ventures that the contributors all hope that treating these terms in juxtaposition may allow for new configurations of inquiry. (shrink)

Quentin Meillassoux’s speculative materialism aims to define access to reality of the natural world apart from its giveness to sentient subjects. This world apart is designated by Meillassoux as the “Great Outdoors” which was marginalized as a topic of philosophy after Kant’s critiques. The question of the incommensurability of human subjects and physical objects is taken up by Meillassoux and addressed by allowing mathematizable properties of physical objects to be referred to objectively in mathematical statements. In this paper we follow (...) the discussion with speculative materialism conducted by Deborah Danowski and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro in The Ends of the World (2017). These authors show that Meillassoux’s conception of the “Great Outdoors” includes, yet insufficiently explores, the notion of ancestral humanity in Amerindian myth – and intimately related to the practice of hallucinogenic trance – as the means to address the problem of said incommensurability. (shrink)

In this article, I examine the conceptual and methodological points of convergence and divergence of two intellectual currents frequently referred to as the decolonial and ontological turns in social and anthropological theory. Salient points considered are the ways both theoretical projects unsettle modernity’s dominant ontological and epistemological foundations by seriously engaging the conceptual potential of thinking with alterity (ethical dimension) and from exteriority (geopolitical dimension). I compare their subversive methodological contributions, examining, in particular, Enrique Dussel’s analectical hermeneutic approach and (...) class='Hi'>Eduardo Viveiros de Castro’s ethnographic method of controlled equivocation. Lastly, I discuss how both theories and approaches complement each other’s efforts to destabilize Western modernity’s philosophical and anthropological foundations. (shrink)

This book analyses anthropological debates on "relationism" (referring to methodological and theoretical issues) and sets out to reconsider these discussions with regards to the notion of "substance" (generally associated with the body). Reflecting on the philosophical origins and implications of these two concepts, the author aims to bring them to the heart of contemporary anthropological discourse and addresses the erasure (or blurring) of "substance" in favour of "relation." The argument put forward is that the conceptual pairing of "substance-relation" should be (...) substituted for the "nature-culture" dualism that has been dominant in structural anthropology. The chapters engage with the work of scholars such as Philippe Descola, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro and Wang Mingming as part of a decentring and questioning of the tradition in which anthropology is rooted. The book also considers the role that the anthropology of China plays in the re-evaluation of the relationship between relation and substance. The concept of "submutance" is introduced with Chinese ethnographic material to explore the possibility of moving beyond the relation-substance dualism of Western heritage. This is valuable reading for scholars interested in the theory and history of anthropology. (shrink)

The relationship between place and remembering has been a long-standing matter of phenomenological concern. The role of the 'lived body' in mediating acts of remembering in context is clearly crucial. In this paper we contribute to an 'expanded view of memory' by describing how remembering difficult or problematic events -- 'vital memories' -- draws upon inter-subjective and inter-objective relations. We discuss two conceptual tools that provide an analytic framework -- the concept of 'life space' drawn from Kurt Lewin and the (...) idea of the 'setting specificity' of remembering. From this perspective we can see that the 'lived body' does not constitute a singular unity but rather a 'plurality' of potential bodies that have 'operative solidarity' with the material relations in which they are constituted. Drawing on the work of Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, we argue that 'body memories' need to be analysed from within the embodied material-relational perspective wherein they are afforded. (shrink)

This article is a belated contribution to a Common Knowledge symposium on the “unanticipated conceptual practice” of “anthropological philosophy.” The basic argument is that the groundwork for this emerging approach, associated foremost with Eduardo Viveiros de Castro's book Métaphysiques cannibales of 2009, was laid in the 1970s by the controversial French anthropologists Pierre and Hélène Clastres. It is argued that the Clastres took the intellectual practices of Guarani shamans and prophets as analogous to the those of ancient (...) Greek philosophers but also as sharply critical of the principles that underlay early Western metaphysics. (shrink)

Philosophies of Difference engages with the concept of difference in relation to a number of fundamental philosophical and political problems. Insisting on the inseparability of ontology, ethics and politics, the essays and interview in this volume offer original and timely approaches to thinking nature, sexuate difference, racism, and decoloniality. The collection draws on a range of sources, including Latin American Indigenous ontologies and philosophers such as Henri Bergson, Jacques Derrida, Luce Irigaray, Immanuel Kant, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Charles Mills, and Eduardo (...) Viveiros de Castro. -/- The contributors think embodiment and life by bringing continental philosophy into generative dialogue with fields including plant studies, animal studies, decoloniality, feminist theory, philosophy of race, and law. Affirming the importance of interdisciplinarity, Philosophies of Difference contributes to a creative and critical intervention into established norms, limits, and categories. Invoking a conception of difference as both constitutive and generative, this collection offers new and important insights into how a rethinking of difference may ground new and more ethical modes of being and being-with. Philosophies of Difference unearths the constructive possibilities of difference for an ethics of relationality, and for elaborating non-anthropocentric sociality. -/- The chapters in this book were originally published in a special issue in Australian Feminist Law Journal. (shrink)

This article discusses how the legal systems in several Western countries, with a special focus on Italy, address our present day animal rights movement and how these legal systems can faithfully reflect the movement’s values as well as promote them in a manner that will ultimately change the rights themselves and their cultural context: this is an extremely interesting issue for the semiotic study of the “humanization of animals”. Therefore, I will summarize several semiotic arguments using the model of the (...) four ontologies by Philippe Descola and the concept of prospectivism by Eduardo Viveiros De Castro. I expect several important changes will come about thanks to the ties between philosophical animal rights discourse and legal discourse and I also believe that the two most interesting issues will be animal labor and reproduction. I will concentrate on the debate over zoophilia laws in Denmark, Germany and Italy in order to propose a way to understand the threshold which separates humans and animals in our naturalistic ontology. Nowadays, “becoming animals” and “becoming humans” seem to be two central and open-ended semiotic processes: legal rights and animal rights philosophy help bring several issues into focus such as animal subjectivity and informed consent. (shrink)

In this article I argue that Thomas Hobbes’s theory of the “state of nature” should be understood as describing a thoroughly political situation. Hobbes’s exemplification of the state of nature by resorting to the “savages” of America should be taken in its ultimately paradoxical character, one that puts in question the stark opposition between a prepolitical natural state and the properly political state resulting from the “social contract.” Through the lenses of ethnographic studies and anthropological theory, I propose a reinterpretation (...) of Hobbes’s characterization of the state of nature as a state of war. In the first section, I present my interpretation of Hobbes’s understanding of war, arguing that war is characterized not by actual battle but by the uncertainty of conflict, already entailing a social dimension to it. In the second section, I engage with Pierre Clastres’s theory of the society against the State to discuss how, for Amerindian peoples, war not only has a social character but is itself the basis of sociality. In the last section, I discuss Eduardo Viveiros de Castro’s theory of potential affinity to propose that Hobbes’s state of nature is also a form of schematization of alterity as enmity. I conclude by showing how this provides an understanding of peace as a precarious situation, one that is the outcome of ethical practices ultimately independent from the State. (shrink)

In this conversation, Brazilian anthropologist, philosopher, and political activist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro offers an overview of his thinking, both past and present. After explaining why initially he argued that ontology should be a topic of anthropologists, he discusses his more recent conclusion that indigenous thought should be regarded instead as metaphysical. It is not that la pensée sauvage has an implicit ontology discoverable by the human sciences but, rather, that indigenous people themselves think about metaphysical issues (...) as such. He explains the origins of this position in the ethnographic fieldwork that he undertook in the 1980s with the Awareté of northwestern Brazil and in his and the anthropologist Philippe Descola's parallel engagements with the structuralism of Claude Lévi-Strauss. Finally, Viveiros de Castro addresses the political stakes of ascribing metaphysics to alien and marginal peoples, clarifying what he means by the “permanent decolonization of thought.”. (shrink)

The iconoclastic Brazilian anthropologist and theoretician Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, well known in his discipline for helping initiate its “ontological turn,” offers a vision of anthropology as “the practice of the permanent decolonization of thought.” After showing that Amazonian and other Amerindian groups inhabit a radically different conceptual universe than ours—in which nature and culture, human and nonhuman, subject and object are conceived in terms that reverse our own—he presents the case for anthropology as the study of (...) such “other” metaphysical schemes, and as the corresponding critique of the concepts imposed on them by the human sciences. Along the way, he spells out the consequences of this anthropology for thinking in general via a major reassessment of the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss, arguments for the continued relevance of Deleuze and Guattari, dialogues with the work of Philippe Descola, Bruno Latour, and Marilyn Strathern, and inventive treatments of problems of ontology, translation, and transformation. Bold, unexpected, and profound, _Cannibal Metaphysics_ is one of the chief works marking anthropology’s current return to the theoretical center stage. (shrink)

This article conceptualizes contemporary geopolitical violence in the Arctic through a semiotic register. Different living beings perceive different things, and these differences amount to different worlds, not merely different worldviews. Building on Eduardo Kohn’s reading of the semiotics of Charles Sanders Peirce, and theorists of biosemiotics and ecosemiotics, the article analyses how signs in and between living organisms and their environments are political matters of life and death. Via the themes of invisibility, colors, and snow, the article traces semiotic (...) relations between different living beings and their Arctic ecologies to weave a semiotic understanding of contemporary geopolitical violence in the Arctic and the role of climate change therein. The article defines the violence of climate change as a violence of not being able to recognize oneself, and builds on Eduardo Viveiros de Castro’s concept of multinaturalism to explain what it means that one world ruins other worlds. (shrink)

To what extent are non human alterities in contemporary Brazilian literature? How have some Brazilian writers dealt with the paradoxical relations between humanity and animality, as well as with ethno-ecological problems proper to our time? This article addresses the presence of non human beings in works by Nicanor Sena, Astrid Cabral, Olga Savary, Sérgio Medeiros and Josely Vianna Baptista, in the light of a transdisciplinary theoretical framework that includes thinkers such as Ailton Krenak, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, (...) Dominique Lestel and Donna Haraway. The article also deals with the cultural and textual hybridity that cuts through the works of some authors of our literary repertoire. I thereby show how they present a liminal nature, with a strong transnational bent, as they are shot through by mythological and zoological elements, indigenous legends, diverse literary references, and different geographical and linguistic spaces. (shrink)

Dans le dernier numéro de 2010 de l’ Interdisciplinary Science Reviews intitulé « Histoire et nature humaine », Brad Inwood et Willard McCarty, rédacteurs en chef, ont invité le professeur G.E.R Lloyd, à écrire un article sur le débat entre universalistes et relativistes, reprenant les thèses de son récent livre Cognitive Variations (Oxford University Press, 2007). À cet article répondent des spécialistes de diverses disciplines. Nous publions ici la réponse de deux anthropologues : Philippe Descola et Eduardo Viveiros (...) de Castro. (shrink)

Em que medida as alteridades não humanas se inscrevem na literatura brasileira contemporânea? Como alguns escritores brasileiros têm lidado com as relações paradoxais entre humanidade e animalidade, bem como com os problemas ecológicos do nosso tempo? Este artigo aborda a presença dos seres não humanos em obras de Nicanor Sena, Astrid Cabral, Olga Savary, Sérgio Medeiros e Josely Vianna Baptista, à luz de um referencial teórico transdisciplinar, que inclui pensadores como Ailton Krenak, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Dominique (...) Lestel e Donna Haraway. Outro tópico desenvolvido é o hibridismo cultural e textual que atravessa os trabalhos de alguns dos autores incluídos no repertório literário, de forma a mostrar como eles apresentam um caráter fronteiriço, com um forte viés transnacional, por estarem atravessados por elementos zoológicos e mitológicos, lendas indígenas, referências literárias diversas e diferentes espaços linguístico-geográficos. (shrink)

O texto investiga os “indesconstruíveis” na filosofia de Jacques Derrida e sua relação com espectrologia, fé e messianidade. Partindo de uma imagem de ziguezague, ela própria presente em diversos ensaios derridianos, aproxima e desaproxima os indesconstruíveis (justiça, perdão, promessa, dom etc.) das ideias de indecidível e decisão, místico e espectral e, finalmente, imanente e transcendente. A partir do debate sobre a Era Axial, pergunta-se, então, se os indesconstruíveis derridianos podem mesmo postular a universalidade, apresentando como contraponto o tratamento da fé (...) secular em Hägglund e da espectralidade nas metafísicas ameríndias tal como descritas por Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. (shrink)

Our purpose in this study – which stands at the crossroads of contemporary philosophy, anthropology, and religious studies – is to assess critically the plea for radical contingency in contemporary thought, with special attention to the work of Meillassoux, in light, among other things, of the symptomatic presence of Pauline motifs in the late twentieth to early twenty first-century philosophical arena, from Vattimo to Agamben and especially Badiou. Drawing on Aristotle’s treatment of τύχη and Hilan Bensusan’s neo-monadology (as well as (...) on the network biology of David George Haskell, Scott Gilbert’s holobiont hypothesis, and Terrence Deacon’s teleo-dynamics), we ask what is missing in such plea, from a theoretical standpoint. Next, we examine the relation between radical contingency and worldlessness in dialogue with Leroi-Gourhan’s theory of biocultural evolution, Lévi-Strauss’s structural anthropology, Pierre Clastres’s ethnography, Heidegger’s philosophy of language, and contemporary authors like Eduardo Viveiros de Castro and Patrice Maniglier. These two parallel lines of inquiry help us explore what radical contingency, in turn, prevents us from thinking: the intersection of ontology, cosmopolitics, and modality. (shrink)

A partir de uma explanação inicial sobre o significado e os limites da ontologia fundamental de Martin Heidegger, este ensaio procura investigar a possibilidade de uma ontologia não-antropogenética por meio do conceito problemático de extramundanidade. Essa investigação toma como fio condutor a ideia do “perspectivismo cosmológico”, elaborada por Eduardo Viveiros de Castro através de uma interpretação filosófico-antropológica do pensamento ameríndio. Lida como correlato positivo da extramundanidade, a noção perspectivística de sobrenatureza é contrastada com o conceito existencial de (...) ser para confirmação e problematização de seu caráter antropogenético. O objetivo principal do ensaio consiste em desvelar, apoiado radicalmente em outro pensamento, o sentido “cosmopolítico” do discurso sobre o ser, aqui representado pela filosofia de Heidegger. (shrink)

Resumen: El pueblo shipibo-konibo, asentado principalmente a orillas del río Ucayali, es uno de los más numerosos en la Amazonía peruana. Este artículo propone, a partir de la cosmogonía de los antiguos sabios Meraya (médicos visionarios de la nación shipiba), una reflexión filosófica en torno a los posibles aportes ecológicos y éticos del perspectivismo shipibo. El texto plantea que la noción de perspectiva (tal como la entiende el antropólogo brasileño Eduardo Viveiros de Castro (2013)) tiene una equivalencia (...) en el concepto shipibo de Nete, que suele traducirse al castellano como mundo. La concepción ancestral de que existen muchos mundos relacionados entre sí, propone al ser humano una exigencia ética y ecológica en la que ninguna perspectiva-ontológica puede imponerse abusivamente sobre otras. Las presentes reflexiones filosóficas se basan en un prolongado trabajo de campo, con rigurosidad etnográfica, y en un sostenido estudio interpretativo de las narraciones orales del pueblo shipibo-konibo. Abstract: The Shipibo-Konibo indigenous nation, settled mainly on the banks of the Ucayali River, is one of the most numerous in the Peruvian Amazon. This article proposes, based on the cosmogony of the ancient Meraya sages (visionary doctors of the Shipibo nation), a philosophical reflection on the possible ecological and ethical contributions of Shipibo perspectivism. The text argues that the notion of perspective (as understood by the Brazilian anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro (2013)) has an equivalence in the Shipibo concept of Nete, which is usually translated into English as world. The ancestral conception, according to which there are many interrelated worlds, proposes an ethical and ecological requirement for human beings in which no one ethical perspective can be imposed abusively over others. The present philosophical reflections are based on extensive fieldwork, with ethnographic rigour, and on a sustained interpretative study of the oral narratives of the Shipibo-Konibo people. (shrink)

O presente texto parte de uma analogia com a obra “Após o fim da arte: a arte contemporânea e os limites da história” de Arthur Danto para pensar perspectivas da produção artística após a decretação de seu fim, ou seja, após o momento em que os modelos tradicionais de pensar e fazer arte passaram a não se enquadrar às próprias obras de arte. A perspectiva abordada traz à tona os contextos de visibilidade e de participação do mundo da arte, o (...) qual acompanha um movimento simultâneo de globalização e regionalização. Para tanto, o presente artigo fará uma analise decolonial da tese de Arthur Danto, para então explicitar de que modo ela não se mostra suficiente. Por fim, trará para a discussão os conceitos de perspectivismo e multinaturalismo trabalhados por Eduardo Viveiros de Castro para apontar caminhos que permitam pensar a arte para além dos limites da arte europeia. (shrink)