26/07/2016

CirclingSquares:DavidGraeberagainstEduardoViveirosdeCastroandthe'ontologicalturn'
mais Prximoblog

levindocp@gmail.com Painel Sair

CirclingSquares
InwhichIformstrongopinionsaboutthingsIdon'tknowenoughabout.

Blogroll

RealWorld
Economics
ReviewBlog
IstheTransPacific
Partnership
PresidentObamas
Vietnam?
3hoursago

Saideman's
SemiSpew
Vacation
Convention
Blogging
4hoursago

Progressive
Geographies
Foucault,the
Archiveandthe
Writingof
IntellectualHistory
audiooflecture
5hoursago

BillMitchellbilly
blog
TheBankofJapan
needstointroduce
OvertMonetary
Financingnext
9hoursago

Informed
Comment
ThemostLeftWing
SupremeCourtina
Generation?Sec.
Clintonsmost
important
Progressive
Prospect
12hoursago

TheDuckof
Minerva
A(Un)DeadLetter?:
Zombies,Feminist
TheoryandtheIR
Classroom
23hoursago

ObjectOriented
Philosophy
IanBogostsfirst
tradebooksetto
appear
1dayago

TaxResearchUK
Whatdoyoucallthe
auditorwhofailedto
spotthemessat
BHS?
1dayago

LarvalSubjects.
Epicurus,Spinoza,
andFreud
2daysago

enemyindustry
NewSubstantivism
inPhilosophyof
Technology
3daysago

PHILOSOPHYIN
ATIMEOF
ERROR

Sunday,25October2015

DavidGraeberagainstEduardoViveirosde
Castroandthe'ontologicalturn'
Furthertomylastpost,thenewissueofHau:JournalofEthnographicTheoryhas
anarticlebyDavidGraeber,Radicalalterityisjustanotherwayofsaying"reality":
AreplytoEduardoViveirosdeCastro.Asthetitlemightsuggest,itisareplytode
Castro'sWhoisafraidoftheontologicalwolf?,which,inturn,criticisesanotherof
Graeber'sessays.

Home
Aboutme
Papersand
Publications
Academia.edu

Email

Search

Search

Itisalong,ofteninterestingbutalsooftenratherpedanticdefenceofGraeber's
philosophicalpositionagainstwhatheseesastheidealismofdeCastroetal.
Subscribe

Afairlylargeportionofthepieceinvolves'unpacking'whatIthoughttobereally
ratherstark,staringobvious:thatwhenadvocatesofthesocalled'ontologicalturn'
inanthropologyusetheword'ontology'theydonotmeanitinthetraditional
philosophicalsenseofaformal,structured,philosophicalaccountofbeingbutrather
useittorefertothetacit,informallivedunderstandingsandpresuppositionsthat
haveontologicalorcosmologicalconsequences.Ireallydon'tknowwhyitneeded
somuchexplicationas,fromwhatI'veread,thisisnotinanywayacontroversial
interpretation.

Posts
Comments

Archive

2016(15)
2015(79)

ThereasonforthelongwindedexplicationispresumablythatGraebersincerely
dislikesthisredefinition(althoughheisrelativelycourteous,forthemostpart,with
howhegoesaboutstatingthis).Particularlyatissueistherelativismthatrefuses
therightofananthropologisttopositasingularreality'behind'themultiplicityof
understandingsoftheworld(thefamousmulticulturalism/mononaturalism).
ForGraeber,theselfdeclaredontologicalpluralistsarejustradicalidealists.He
prefersthe'depthontology'ofcriticalrealismthatpositsasingularrealitythatis
unknowable.Thisunknowabilityisthoughttoleaveenoughroomforcultural
multiplicityandalltheontologytalkis,atbest,unnecessary.
AsIseeit,theaccusationofidealismistheproductofGraeber'sowndualism.For
theontologicalturners,Graeberclaims:
"[authoritative]statementsmustbetreatedasawindowonto
concepts,andconceptstreatedthroughaformofradical
constructivismasiftheywerethemselvesrealitiesofthesame
ontologicalstandingasthings,orindeed,constitutiveoftheworld
itself."(20)
Forconceptstobeofthesameontologicalstandingasthingssimplymeansthat
oneisnotbifurcatingrealityi.e.oneisrefusingdualism.Toslipfromthatto"or
indeed,constitutiveoftheworlditself"isaconflation.Hecontinues:
"Theontologicalturn,then,involvesnotonlyabandoningtheproject
ofontology1[i.e.traditional,philosophicalontology],butadoptinga
tacitontologywhichseemsindistinguishablefromclassical
philosophicalIdealism.Ideasgeneraterealities.Onecouldgoeven
further.Whattheyseemtobeproposingisabandoningtheentire
projectofphilosophy(oratleast,philosophyinanythingliketheforms
ithashistoricallytakeninEurope,India,China,ortheIslamicWorld.)
Science,incontrast,wouldbepreserved,butasthespecialproperty
ofWesternersorEuroAmericanswhichiftakenseriously,would
amounttooneofthegreatestactsofintellectualtheftinhuman
history,sinceafterall,muchofwhatunderlieswhatwenowcall
WesternsciencewasactuallydevelopedinplaceslikePersia,
Bengal,andChina,andin(dareIsay?)therealworld.Mostscientific
researchisnolongerbeingconductedbyEuroAmericansatall."(21)
Therearevariousclaimshere.Theclaimtobeabletostatewhattheentiretyofthe
philosophicaltraditionsofnotonlyEuropebutalsoIndia,ChinaandtheIslamic
worldhavebeenallaboutispresumptuousborderingonpompous,tosaytheleast.
EvenWesternphilosophyhasbeenaboutrathermorethanmagisteriallypostulating
thefurnitureoftheuniverse,althoughthathascertainlybeenapartofit.Thebit
aboutscienceisacheapshotthatrelatestonothingIcanimaginedeCastroetal.

http://circlingsquares.blogspot.com.br/2015/10/davidgraeberagainsteduardoviveiros.html

27December
3January(1)
22November
29November
(1)
15November
22November
(2)
1November8
November(1)
25October1
November(1)
DavidGraeber
against
Eduardo
Viveirosde
Castroa...
18October25
October(5)
4October11
October(2)
27September
4October(5)
6September
13September
(2)
23August30
August(1)
26July2
August(1)
12July19
July(1)
28June5July
(1)
21June28
June(4)
14June21
June(2)
7June14
June(2)
31May7June
(3)
17May24
May(2)

1/7

26/07/2016

CirclingSquares:DavidGraeberagainstEduardoViveirosdeCastroandthe'ontologicalturn'
SPEPprogram
online
3daysago

Installing(Social)
Order
TeachingParadigms
4daysago

NewAPPS:Art,
Politics,
Philosophy,
Science
NCAntiLGBTLaw
Update:NBAMoves
AllStarGamefrom
Charlotte
4daysago

ArchiveFire
dispatch#1
4daysago

GeorgeMonbiot
PunishmentPosting
5daysago

lukebennett13
NewUsesforOld
Bunkers#37:the
manylivesof
GreenhamsGAMA
silos
1weekago

TheDisorderOf
Things
Racism,
multiculturalismand
Brexit
3weeksago

GeoCritique
LOVEISNOTA
SCARCITY
ECONOMYby
MayaWeeks
4weeksago

RelationsInternati
onal
Theburdenof
insecurity:Using
theoriesof
International
Relationstomake
senseofthestateof
post9/11politics
5weeksago

Icite
Bernie's
internationalpolicy
1monthago

StruggleForever!
#AnthroSciFi
4monthsago

ThePinocchio
Theory
Affect/Emotion
4monthsago

DavidCampbell
Newyear,new
professional
direction
7monthsago

TheoryTalks
TheoryTalk#72:
RobertWade
7monthsago

Networkologies
MonthlongZalamea
Seminarstartsthis
WeekinNYCat
PrattManhattan
9monthsago

throughthe
lookingglass
Municipalmuralsof
1980sLondon
1yearago

ANTHEM

acceptingforamoment.

3May10May
(3)

Themainclaim,however,isthatalltheontologicalturnersarereallydoingis
reproducingatired,oldandquiteextremeformofidealismwhereconceptsproduce
and/orexhaustreality.Now,I'vebynomeansreadtheentiretyoftherelevant
literaturebutthisstrikesmeasakneejerkreactionbasedonamisunderstanding
thatultimatelysaysmoreaboutGraeber'spresuppositionsthanitdoesabout
anyoneelse's.

26April3May
(5)

Idonotunderstandthepositionofontologicalpluralismtobeclaimingthatconcepts
constituterealitywithoutremainder.Iunderstandtheclaimtobethatconcepts,
ideas,whateveryouwanttocallthem,areonthesamelevelofrealityaseverything
else.Thatis,thatitisillegitimatetosaythatonehasconceptsononehandand
thingsonanother(bifurcation).Furthermore,thatitisimpossibletorefertoathing
exceptinliaisonwithparticularconcepts.Thatdoesn'tmeanthatconceptsareall
thatthereis,onlythattospeakistoconceptualise.Youcannotthinkwithout
abstractions,asWhiteheadputit.
So,yes,AmerindiansandEuropeanshavedifferentperspectives,different
cosmologies,etc.Butthetreesandantsandspidersandsoonpresumablyhave
theirperspectives,too.Ofcourse,theanthropologistquaanthropologistisnotso
interestedintheperspectivesofthosethingsinthemselvesbutinwhattheir
informantssayaboutthosethings(althoughthisisfarfromstraightforward,
admittedly).Hencewhyitmightlookabitlikeidealism.Butitsimplydoesnot
followthatthesethingsareequivalent.Methodsandphilosophiesoverlapandmight
confuseeachotheralittlebitbutasympatheticreadingcan,Ithink,tellthemapart.
Thequestionhangingaroundtheentirearticleis'okay,butyoudon'treallybelieveit
whentheysaythat,doyou?'Theimplicationisthatitmaybegoodmanners(or
even,dependingonthecircumstances,goodpolitics)torhetoricallyacceptthe
beliefsofothersthatstriketheobserverasbeingwhollyuntruebutthatthereisa
deeperandmorefundamentalsenseinwhichonecan,andshould,declarethem
obviouslyunbelievable.Beliefisabsolutised,underlyingallothermodesofaction.
Theepistemicunderliesandunderpinsthemoral,thepoliticalandsoon.Beliefis
sacred.Tofailtogivebeliefitssovereigntyissimplyincomprehensible.
ThethingthatGraeberreallycan'tgetawayfrom,Ithink,istheideathateitheryou
acceptthatthereisarealworld(Iwon'tadd'outthere'becauseIthinkheis
sophisticatedenoughtoavoidthatartefactofcommonsensestupidity)oryoudeny
theexistenceofaworldapartfromconceptsaltogether.Inotherwords,heseems
topresumethattosaythatthereare'manyworlds'ratherthanjustasingularworld
istoreducerealitytoconcepts.Thisjustdoesn'tfollowanddoesn'tgraspwhatI
thinkontologicalpluralistsareclaiming.

19April26
April(4)
12April19
April(4)
5April12April
(2)
29March5
April(1)
22March29
March(1)
15March22
March(3)
8March15
March(3)
22February1
March(1)
15February
22February(2)
8February15
February(2)
1February8
February(5)
25January1
February(2)
18January25
January(1)
11January18
January(2)
4January11
January(1)
2014(113)
2013(109)
2012(50)
2011(30)
2010(61)
2009(20)

It'satoughthingtoexplainsoI'llapproachitfromabitofanobliqueangle(I'm
thinkingthisthroughmoreformyselfthanforanyoneelse,tobehonest!).
WhenIusedtoliveinLondon,Irealisedquitequicklythatnobodyactuallylives'in
London'it'sanabstraction.Londonisjustfar,fartoobigtolive'in'itinany
meaningfulsenseasatotality.Youliveinthisorthatstreet,thatarea.Perhapsyou
havefriendshereandthere.Youtakethistubeline,etc.Itisquiteobviousthatyou
liveinsidequiteanarrowandconfinednetworkandthatthevast,overwhelming
majorityofthecityfallsbetweenthelinesthatyoutravel.Mostofityouwillnever
seenoreventhinkabout.
Thefactthattheepistemictechniquesofgeographyallowustoplacethese
networkswithinalargercontainerthatcanbedefinedasthetotality'London'(and
thefactthatthismaybeaveryusefulandsensiblethingtodonavigationally,
administrativelyandsoon)shouldnotdeterminethesocialontologybywhichone
understandsthiscityasitisbeinglivedin.Inotherwords,thecommonsensefact
thatallthesestreets,offices,bars,pipes,drainsandsoonthatmakeupan
individual'scityaslivedresidewithinadefinable,connectedregiondoesnotmean
thatLondonisone,cohesive,singularentitylikeabodyofwhichonewasacell.
TheclaimIwouldmakeisthatthereisnoonewayofjoiningthesevariousthings
upthatcanbesaidtobethe'reality'thatwouldhavepartsfromwhichparticular
perspectivescouldbeassembled(nottheplanner'sbird'seyeview,northe
individual'slivedexperience,etc.).Thatsingularityortotalityisasuperfluous
hypothesis.Thecrucialthingtoemphasiseisthatthebollards,therails,thebins,
thefoxes,theconceptsandsoonallofthesethingsarepartofthisnotone,part
ofthismultiplicitythatcannotbeassembledinanyonewaythatcanbedeclared
themostreal.Becausetheyarenotbifurcatedintodifferentrealms,itisperfectly
sensibleandconsistenttoholdthatthereisnoonewayofjoiningthemup,just
connectedandoverlappingwaysthatneveradduptoawhole.Or,rather,whena
particularmannerofjoiningthingsupformsatotality,thisisalsojustonekindof
entangledcomplexamongothers.Itmaybemoreorlessimportant,moreorless
usefulrelativetoaparticulartaskorproblembutitcanbegivennotranscendent,
automaticpriority.
WhatistrueofLondonisalsotrueoftheworld,indeedtheplanet.Yes,inacertain
senseweallliveon'one'planet.Itwouldbesillydodenythisbutineitheraffirming

http://circlingsquares.blogspot.com.br/2015/10/davidgraeberagainsteduardoviveiros.html

2/7

26/07/2016

CirclingSquares:DavidGraeberagainstEduardoViveirosdeCastroandthe'ontologicalturn'
GrahamHarman:
BrunoLatour
Reassemblingthe
Political
1yearago

BBCAdamCurtis
Blog
THEYEARSOF
STAGNATIONAND
THEPOODLESOF
POWER
2yearsago

GAPINGEARTH
AlienWeeds:The
OriginsofLifeonan
UncannyPlanet
2yearsago

Speculative
Heresy
TranslationofF.
LaruellesToward
anActive
Linguistics
2yearsago

ordenyingitwehavetacitlyacceptedcertainpremiseswithregardtotheformof
connectionthatmattersmost.Nothingobviousabouthowthingsareprovesthatwe
shouldthinkaboutthisplanetasasingularentityratherthanasanintensively
connectedbutneverthelessfragmentedanddiscretebundleofbundlesthatisif
wethinkaboutanythingbeyondourimmediatelocaleatall(thatmightalsobe
okay).
Thebanalfactthateverythingisconnectedtoeverythingelseinsomefashiondoes
notmeanthatthereisoneworldratherthanmany.Itisinnowayobscureor
contradictorytoclaimthattherearemanyworlds,allofwhichoverlapandare
relatedinsomewaybutsomeofwhicharequitedistinctandshouldbeunderstood
anddealtwithassuch.Nothingobviousaboutthewaythingsarelicensesa'real
world'whichwouldresidebehindallmerelyculturalunderstandingsofsaidworld.
It'sadogmaticpresumption,whichdoesn'tmakeitwrongbutdoesn'tmakeitright
either.
Atseveralpoints,Graeberpullsouttheoldincommensurabilityargument,which
suggeststhatthedeCastroetal.thinkthatthecollectivesforwhichtheyare
describingontologiesexistassomekindofdefinite,bounded,billiardballtype
entity.That,again,isacheapshotagainstapositionthatIdoubtanyoneinvolvedin
thisdebateisreallyclaimingtoadhereto.Nocollective,certainlynotonethathas
hadaWesternanthropologistlivinginitforyears,isabsolutelypureandseparated
fromtherestoftheworld.Ofcoursethesethingsoverlap,ofcoursetheyare
complicated.Thelimitationsoflanguagesometimesbringsustosuggestthatsuch
thingsaredefiniteentitiesinthemannerofclassicalphysics(orballbasedsports)
butthatdoesnotmakeitnecessarilyso.Everyattempttonameacollectiveisina
senseanattempttoverballylassoalooseandselfassemblingbundleofbundles
thatmaywellshrugoffthatsignification,thatmayevenviolentlyrejectit.The
degreetowhichoneissuccessfulinarticulatingaboundingthatisacceptabletothe
largerproportionofthosepersonsisthebasicbarometerbywhichthenamingcan
bejudgedasuccess.Ofcourse,thisiscomplicatedbyallsortsofpowerdynamics
whogetstoobject?whoseobjectionsareheard?,etc.butsuchislife.These
aretheproblemsthataretobenegotiatedbythetrialsofexperience.
IaddbywayofconclusionshuttingupandgoingtosleepthatI'mnot
unquestioninglyornaivelyonboardwiththeontologicalpluralistagendaasit'sbeing
articulatedinanthropology(forastart,thethingsI'mdescribingabovemaywellnot
befairrepresentationsoforaddendatotheirarguments).First,I'mnotan
anthropologist,justsomeonewithaninterestin,forwantofabetterterm,the
comparativesociologyofknowledge.Graeber'sargumentthatitshouldbewholly
legitimateforanthropologiststoadopttheroleofaninstigatorofdialoguebetween
collectivesratherthanjustsomeonewhocontinuallyemphasisesandsafeguards
radicalalterityseemsperfectlyacceptabletome.However,itreallydependsonthe
collectiveinquestion.Makinggeneralethicalruleswithregardtothisseemsnot
onlyimpossiblebutalsodeeplyunwise.
Thereallyimportantquestionwouldbewhichethicalandpoliticalrolesare
appropriatedependingonwhatcircumstances.Thatisn'ttheconversationthatis
happeningatthemomentbuttheredoesseemtoberoomforit.I'msurethatthis
conversationwillrollon,inanycase.
PostedbyPhilipat01:25
Labels:anthropology,davidgraeber,eduardoviveirosdecastro,ontology

12comments:
DavidGraeber 26October2015at11:25
Ididn'tsaythat"ontologicalpluralists"wouldhavetobearguingthatwordscreate
things,IsaidthataspecificgroupofpeopleAREarguingthatwordscreatethings,
because they literally say they do. I was speaking of a specific tradition in
anthropology called the "ontological turn" and I quote the founding text of that
tradition, the introduction to a book called "Thinking Through Things." What's
moreInotonlysummarisedtheirargumentbutprovidedafootnotethatsaid"just
incasethereaderthinksI'mexaggerating..."andthenprovidedanactualquote
fromthattextliterallysayingthatwordsproducethings.
To just completely ignore that, and pretend that I'm instead making an
unreasonableaccusationagainstsomeimaginarygroupof"ontologicalpluralists"
thatInevermention,isincrediblysloppyscholarship.Iamreferringtoaspecific
tradition,withspecificauthors,andIcitetheirexactwords.
Ifyouwanttosay"sure,butthere"could"beaformofontologicalpluralismthat
doesn'tfallintothistraporeventhatsuchaschoolexists,thenfine,makeyour
case.
Thisessaymakesthatsamekindofmoveoverandover,
DG
Reply

Philip

29October2015at19:38

http://circlingsquares.blogspot.com.br/2015/10/davidgraeberagainsteduardoviveiros.html

3/7

26/07/2016

CirclingSquares:DavidGraeberagainstEduardoViveirosdeCastroandthe'ontologicalturn'
Iwouldneverrefertomyblogas'scholarship'(protoscholarshipatbest)butfair
enough, I should have been more careful. I think ontological pluralism is a fair
term to ascribe to these authors. But you're right, you didn't use that term and I
shouldhaverecognisedthatfact.
ImustalsoadmitthatIammorefamiliarwithViveirosdeCastro'sworkthansome
of the others you are citing and so I am not perhaps fairly understanding the
grouptowhichyourargumentshavebeenposed.
However,tothequoteinquestion,sincethisisapparentlyexhibitA:
"ThoughFoucaultwouldsaythatdiscoursecreatesitsobjects,hestillworksfrom
the presumption that there is some realworld fodder out there. For example,
whileabodymaynotbemaleorfemaleuntiladiscourseofgenderinvokesthis
asanoperativedistinction,thereisstillabodytowhichthediscourserefers.By
contrast, what is advanced here is, if you like, an entirely different kind of
constructivisma radical constructivism not dissimilar to that envisaged by
Deleuze....Discoursecanhaveeffectsnotbecauseitoverdeterminesreality,
butbecausenoontologicaldistinctionbetweendiscourseandrealitypertains
in the first place. In other words, concepts can bring about things because
conceptsandthingsjustareoneandthesame(Henare,Holbraad,Wastel2006:
13).
Youinterpretthistomeanthatthingsarejustconceptsmoreprecisely"words
createthings"(withoutresistanceorremainder).Inotherwords,theeliminationof
theoppositionword/thingmeanstheabsorptionofthingsbywords.
Whilethisexcerptisclunkyandbadlyconstructed(andIwouldnotliketodefend
it), I do not understand them to be saying what you are interpreting them as
saying.However,IwillneedtogoawayandrereadthisincontextbeforeIcan
sayanythingmoreintelligentaboutitthanthat.
Reply

Philip

30October2015at16:35

Okay, so I've been back to the book and reread the above from Henare,
HolbraadandWastell.IamledtotheconclusionthatIwasprobablyabitunfairto
David's argument because there are some serious weaknesses in this chapter
(andperhaps,then,inthesocalled'turn'alsobutIamnotfullyuptodate,asI
admittedpreviously)andbecausehiscritiquewasmorepreciselyfocusedthanI
originallyacknowledged.However,ingeneralIstandbywhatIwrote.Iambyno
means prepared to defend HH&W because I found their piece to be rather
conflicted in itself (and they can presumably defend themselves). But I am still
happytoabidebymyinterpretationofthe'turn.'
Istillthinkthatitisincorrecttointerpretthemassayingthatinbreakingdownthe
concept/thing distinction that things are therefore absorbed into concepts
classic idealism (in places they err close to this but I still don't think that this is
correctthereismoregoingonhere).Ithinkthatitwouldbemoreaccuratetosay
that,forthem,concepts*are*thingsifanythingit'stheoppositemove.Although
I'llhappilyadmitthattheydon'tarticulatethisveryconsistently(perhapsindicating
differencesininterpretationamongstthemselves).Inthepassagequotedabove
they refer to Deleuze & Guattari's 'What is Philosophy?' with regard to the
constructivismofconcepts.TherearemanyreadingsofD&Gbuttheimportance
oftheplaneofimmanenceinthatbookdoesn'tseemtochimewiththeirargument
atleastnotasthey'vemadeithere.Iunderstandwhytheymightwanttoreferto
itintermsofdeclaringphilosophicalallegiancesbutitraisesmorequestionsthan
itanswerswithregardtotheirargument.
Themainsourceofconflict/confusionintheirchapter,forme,isthattheystartout
(and indeed finish off) by referring to what they are proposing with regard to
ontology as an 'analytical' or 'methodological' proposal, as distinct from a
'theoretical' one. So, anthropologists are to strictly bracket their own
understandings of the world in order to do justice to the things that they are
encountering rather than trying to explain them in terms of a preexisting,
superimposed scheme. But at times they seem to suggest that this bracketing
wouldbasicallywipetheresearcher'sownunderstandingsoftheworldclean.So,
methodoverridestheorynotrelativelybutabsolutely.
Reply

Philip

30October2015at16:35

Continued
WhereIwouldleanmoretowardswhatDavidGraeberwasarguingisinthatthis
'bracket' (much like Michel Callon's famous 'frame') must necessarily overflow.
Thereisnowayofleavingoutone'sownontologicalassumptionsaltogether.(I
suspectthathardlyanyoneinvolvedinthisdebatewoulddisagreewiththisbutit
bearsstating.)Theycanbeminimisedbuttheycannotbeeliminated.Theveryact
of bracketing is an act with ontological presuppositions. It could even be
understood as being ontologically creative in its own right. There are no more
blankslateswithregardtoontologythantherearewithregardtogender,race,
class,etc.Theoppositionbetweenmethodandtheorytheysetupistoostrong
and that, I think, is the principal source of conflictedness and, at times,
incoherence.
So,Iwouldarguethateverythingwedohasontologicalpresuppositionsattached
toitand,further,that*thatisokay*!Thatisn'tnecessarilyaproblem.However,the

http://circlingsquares.blogspot.com.br/2015/10/davidgraeberagainsteduardoviveiros.html

4/7

26/07/2016

CirclingSquares:DavidGraeberagainstEduardoViveirosdeCastroandthe'ontologicalturn'
trickistorefusethebifurcationismthatpositsasingularrealityornature'behind'
all of us that is only broken up with different interpretations
(mononaturalism/multiculturalism,again).Onedoesnotneedtogoallthewayto
idealismortotherefusalofallpositiveontologyorphilosophyinordertodothat.
Theprocess,aswiththeethnographicmethodgenerally,isthatoftranslation.Itis
aboutsettingoneself(ImustagainaffirmthatIamnotananthropologistsothisis
allstrictlyfromthearmchair)upasanagentimbuedwiththenecessarypractices
anddispositionssoastoachievethetaskathand(it'sessentiallypragmatic).In
this case that means not assuming a unified reality upon which are imposed a
multiplicity of representations. I fail to see how theory, philosophy, method and
ontologyinallitssensescanbepulledapartsoeasily.
Thatsaid,IthinkHH&WactuallyanticipatealotofDavid'sobjectionsandwhile
they don't answer them quite satisfactorily, I think that the collective project in
general has enough about it philosophically to sustain the claims that I am
making.Worthnotingthatalthoughthisisapparentlythe'foundationaltext'ofthe
'turn,'theyareinturndrawingonvariousworksgoingbacksomeyears,including
ViveirosdeCastro,Latour,etc.ItwaswiththatlargerintertextinmindthatIwas
writing and referring to 'ontological pluralism' which is a term some of these
authorsalsouse.
Idon'tthinkthatthiswillsatisfyanyonewhothoughtthatmyoriginalpostwascrap
butitsatisfiesmysenseofblogpropriety.WereItowritesomethingonthismore
formally of course I would try to do a better job. As it is, these are just my
scribblings. (The fact that my scribblings are public is an artefact of an age the
consequencesofwhichItrynottothinkaboutasitmakesmenauseous.)
Reply

Prem 31October2015at02:52
I'vealsobeentryingtonavigatetheontologicaltwistsandturns!Itseemstome
likethereismorethanoneturn.BesidesViveirosdeCastroandHH&W,Iwould
suggest another scholar as foundational for new takes on ontology, Annemarie
Mol,especiallywithherchapterin"ActorNetworkTheoryandAfter"(1999)titled
"Ontologicalpolitics.Awordandsomequestions".
Her book "The Body Multiple. Ontology in Medical Practice" (2002) focuses on
practicesandsheevensuggestscallingherapproachapraxiographyratherthan
ethnography. The attention to practices and not just concepts seems to me to
distinguish this approach from idealism. Mol explicitly wants to challenge the
primacyoftherealmofideasforknowingtheworld.Incontrast,doesn'tthetitle
"ThinkingThroughThings"soundlikeitisstillcaughtinaprimacyofthinking?
AnotherthingtonoteisthatMol(pp.8384)actuallyexplicitlyrejectsthenotionof
pluralism:"Buttheontologyatcomeswithequatingwhatiswithwhatisdoneis
not of a pluralist kind. The manyfoldedness of objects enacted does not imply
their fragmentation. Although atherosclerosis in the hospital comes in different
versions,thesesomehowhangtogetherThis,then,iswhatIwouldliketheterm
multipletoconvey:thatthereismanyfoldedness,butnotpluralism.Inthehospital
thebody(singular)ismultiple(many)."
Prem
Reply

Philip

1November2015at19:13

Yes,therehavebeen'ontologicalturns'allovertheplace!Iamalittlescepticalof
thedesignation.Ihavenothingagainstthenotionofa'turn'asasignpostona
muchmorecomplicatedlandscapeofdebatesbutthey'renotalwaysveryuseful
signpostsandfrequentlygettakenasdestinationsintheirownright.
PartofthedisagreementhereisthatIwasthinkingofthesevariousdebatesin
their interconnection (because they're not separate Viveiros de Castro, Mol,
Latour, etc. are all in conversation together). Graeber was writing about this
specificallyinanthropology(towhatextentitcanbecordonedoffinthiswayis
debatable and I've clearly been operating on the admittedly underspecified
assumptionthatitcan'tbe).
Mol'sworkhasinspiredalotofpeoplebeyondherimmediatedisciplinaryniche
(insofar as she is located in one). She is probably closer to Viveiros de Castro
andtheanthropologistsintermsofherinsistenceuponthelocalityandspecificity
of practices. Latour has in recent years before much more of a speculative
philosopher. He is trying to work out those tensions between specificity and
generalitybuttheyareverymuchstillthere,Ithink.
Thequestionofpluralism,realism,relativism,etc.isatorturouslycontentiousone,
forsure.Molgivesanimportantanswertoit.
Reply

nemoid123 3November2015at13:01
In case anyone in this discussion can read French, that dying language, may I
suggestthepaperbelowbyPatriceManiglier,whichexplainsmyown"take"on
thesubjectmuchbetterthanIcouldor,tobefrank,wouldcaretonow?
https://www.academia.edu/17617012/Dionysos_anthropologue_Hommage__E
duardo_Viveiros_de_Castro_
Reply

http://circlingsquares.blogspot.com.br/2015/10/davidgraeberagainsteduardoviveiros.html

5/7

26/07/2016

CirclingSquares:DavidGraeberagainstEduardoViveirosdeCastroandthe'ontologicalturn'
Reply

DavidGraeber 5November2015at23:15
I'dgiveyouranalysisaC+.
Youreallyneedtolearnhowtowritewithoutmakingstrawmanargumentsatthe
momentyouseemtofindthisalmostimpossible.Ididnotstatethat"thingsare
absorbed into concepts" I said what I said, which is that they say that concepts
generate things, because that is, literally, what they said. Whether there is a
"remainder"orwhateverotheradditionaldistractionyouarethrowingintomakeit
soundlikeIammakinganunreasonablystrongcaseisirrelevanttothispoint.I
don'tattributeapositiontothemonthismatteronewayoranother,becauseithas
nobearingonmyconclusion,whichisthatthisisaformofphilosophicalidealism.
Ifyouaregoingtocritiquepeopleinpublic,itreallythinkyoushouldlearnhowto
critiquethemfortheiractualarguments,ratherthancontinuallymakingonesup.
That'snotcritique.That'sjustmakingshitup.
DG
Reply

Philip

6November2015at15:32

"Ididnotstatethat"thingsareabsorbedintoconcepts"IsaidwhatIsaid,whichis
thattheysaythatconceptsgeneratethings[...]."
If'conceptsgeneratethings'isnotthesameas'thingsareabsorbedintoconcepts'
then presumably this is a 'philosophical idealism' that is not absolute i.e. not
'withoutremainder.'Inotherwords,itisanidealismthatispresumedtoreston
some conception of noumena or some such. Since, otherwise, there would be
literallynothingbutideasbecausethingswouldbereducibletoideas.Inwhich
case, there would be no meaningful difference between the above statements.
Theywouldbetwodifferentwaysofstatingthesamething:thatthereisnothing
butideas.Andifthatisnotwhatwasbeingclaimedthenitcertainlyseemedlikeit:
"[...] this is not just Idealismit is about as extreme a form of Idealism as it is
possibletohave."(p.23)
Ithinkitisquitepossiblethattheauthorsoftheontologicalturnpiecewillnotfind
yourinterpretationtobea1:1correspondenceeither.
So,myinterpretation,madeupshitornot,remainsonethatIamhappytostand
by.I'msurethatthehandfulofwebwandererswhostumbleacrossthiswillmake
uptheirownminds.
Reply

DG 7November2015at15:34
Isee,soyourpositionisnowthatthisisnotthemostextremepossiblecaseof
philosophicalidealismbecauseeventhoughtheyexplicitlyassertthatideasdo
generateobjectsdirectly,ratherthanconstructinganythingthatisalreadythere,
they MIGHT believe that there actually is something already there even though
they say they don't, or they MIGHT think there's some other material trace
somewhere involved at some point even though they never say there is, and
thereforeit'slegitimatetocritiquesomeoneforsimplyquotingwhattheysayand
taking it at face value because they MIGHT think something else they're not
sayingandIcan'tprovetheydon't.
Bythislogicyoucan'tcriticiseanyoneforanythingofcourseifyouappliedthe
same logic to my own words, you'd be guilty of exactly the same thing you're
accusingmeof,becausehowdoyouknowIdon'talsohaveadifferenttheoryI'm
notsayingthatcontradictswhatIjustsaid?
I'dsaythatdependsfromC+toF.
Ireallydohopeyou'renotthinkingofanacademiccareer.
Reply

Philip

7November2015at21:51

Nope,thatisn'twhatIwassayingatall.
Haveaniceday,though.
Reply

Anonymous 19November2015at16:53
Asoneofthosewebwanderers,IfindMr.Graeber'sretortstobeilljudgedanda
littlespiteful.Philip,keepupthegood,carefulandevenhandedwork.
Reply

http://circlingsquares.blogspot.com.br/2015/10/davidgraeberagainsteduardoviveiros.html

6/7

26/07/2016

CirclingSquares:DavidGraeberagainstEduardoViveirosdeCastroandthe'ontologicalturn'

Enteryourcomment...

Commentas:

Publish

Tatarana(Google)

Signout

Notifyme

Preview

Linkstothispost
CreateaLink
NewerPost

Home

OlderPost

Subscribeto:PostComments(Atom)

Simpletemplate.PoweredbyBlogger.

http://circlingsquares.blogspot.com.br/2015/10/davidgraeberagainsteduardoviveiros.html

7/7