Paris, 30 January
Who said intellectual life in Paris was dead? Who said
anthropology was no longer lively and attractive? Here
we are, on a cold morning in January, in a room packed
with people from various disciplines and several countries
eager to hear a debate between two of the best and brightest
anthropologists.1
The rumour had circulated through chat
rooms and cafés: after years of alluding in private or in
print to their disagreements, they had at last agreed to air
them in public. `It will be rough,' I had been told; `there
will be blood.' In fact, rather than the cockfight some had
anticipated, the tiny room in the Rue Suger witnessed a
disputatio, much like those that must have taken place
between earnest scholars here, in the heart of the Latin
Quarter, for more than eight centuries.
Althoughthetwohadknowneachotherfor25years,they
had decided to begin their disputatio by each reminding
the audience of the important impact of the other's work
on their own discoveries.
Philippe Descola acknowledged first how much he had
learned from Eduardo Viveiros de Castro when he was
trying to extirpate himself from the `nature versus culture'
binarism by reinventing the then outdated notion of
`animism' to make sense of alternative modes of relation
between humans and non-humans. Viveiros had proposed
the term `perspectivism'for a mode that could not possibly
hold inside the narrow strictures of nature versus culture,
since for the Indians he was studying, human culture is what
binds all beings together ­ animals and plants included whereas
they are divided by their different natures, that is,
their bodies (Viveiros 1992).
This is why, while the theologians in Valladolid where
debating whether or not Indians had a soul, those same
Indians, on the other side of the Atlantic, were experimenting
on the conquistadors by drowning them to see
whether they would rot ­ a nice way of determining that
they did indeed have a body; that they had a soul was not in
question. This famous example of symmetric anthropology
led Lévi-Strauss to note, somewhat tongue in cheek, that
the Spaniards might have been strong in the social sciences
but the Indians had been conducting their research
according to the protocol of the natural sciences.
Descola's four modes of relation
Descola then explained how his new definition of animism
could be used to distinguish `naturalism' ­ the view most
often taken to be the default position of Western thought
­ from `animism'. While `naturalists' draw similarities
between entities on the basis of physical traits and distinguish
them on the basis of mental or spiritual characteristics,
`animism' takes the opposite position, holding that
all entities are similar in terms of their spiritual features,
but differ radically by virtue of the sort of body they are
endowed with.
This was a breakthrough for Descola, since it meant that
the `nature versus culture' divide no longer constituted
the inevitable background adopted by the profession as a
whole, but only one of the ways that `naturalists' had of
establishing their relations with other entities. Nature had
shifted from being a resource to become a topic. Needless
to say, this discovery was not lost on those of us in the
neighbouring field of science studies who were studying,
historically or sociologically, how the `naturalists' managed
their relations with non-humans.
April 2009 ­ vol 25 ­ no 2
every two months
ISSN 0268-540X
atanthropology
today
Director of the RAI: Hilary Callan
Editor: Gustaaf Houtman
Editorial Consultant: Sean Kingston
Sub-Editor: Rachel Gomme
Design Consultant: Peter Jones, Stuart Russell
Production Consultant: Dominique Remars
Editorial Panel: Robert Foley, Alma Gottlieb,
Karl Heider, Michael Herzfeld, Solomon
Katz, John Knight, Jeremy MacClancy, Danny
Miller, Howard Morphy, Monique Borgerhoff
Mulder, Stephen O. Murray, Judith Okely, Jarich
Oosten, Nigel Rapport, Nancy Scheper-Hughes,
MasakazuTanaka, Christina Toren, Patty Jo Watson
Editorial address: Please read Notes to
Contributors before making submissions (www.
therai.org/anthrotoday.html). Correspondence
(except subscriptions, changes of address
etc) via anthropologytoday@gmail.com and
at.edmgr.com to: The Editor, ANTHROPOLOGY
TODAY, Royal Anthropological Institute, 50
Fitzroy Street, London W1T 5BT, UK, tel. +44
20 7387 0455, fax +44 20 7388 8817.
Copy dates: 15th of even months
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600
Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK,
phone: +44 1865 776868, fax: +44 1865 714591.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd is now part of John
Wiley & Sons.
Disclaimer: The Publisher, RAI and Editors
cannot be held responsible for errors or
any consequences arising from the use of
information contained in this journal; the views
and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
those of the Publisher, RAI and Editors, neither
does the publication of advertisements constitute
any endorsement by the Publisher, RAI and
Editors of the products advertised.
Information for subscribers: Six issues
of bimonthly ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY are
mailed free of charge per annum to Fellows and
Members of the Royal Anthropological Institute
(registered charity no. 246269). Rates for 2009:
Member: 30, 23, or US$45. Single copy: 9
UK, or $21 overseas plus VAT where applicable.
Visit www.therai.org.uk/joining/index.html.
Institutional subscriptions for 2009:
Premium Institutional: 79 (UK/rest of world
except N America), US$133 (N America).
Includes online access to the current and all
available previous year electronic issues. Visit
interscience.wiley.com/journal-info.
Back issues: Single issues from current and
recent volumes available at the current single
issue price from cs-journals@wiley.com. Earlier
issues may be obtained from Swets & Zeitlinger,
Back Sets, Heereweg 347, PO Box 810, 2160
Lisse, The Netherlands.
Periodical ID: ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY (0268-
540X) is published bimonthly. US mailing agent:
Mercury Airfreight International Inc., 365 Blair
Road, Avenel, NJ 07001, USA. Periodical postage
paid at Rahway NJ. Postmaster: send all address
changes to ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY, Journal
Customer Services, John Wiley & Sons Inc.,350
Main St., Malden, MA 02148-5020.
Journal Customer Services: For ordering
information, claims and any enquiry concerning
your journal subscription please go to interscience.
wiley.com/support, email cs-journals@wiley.com,
or contact your nearest office:
Americas: Tel: +1 781 388 8598 or 1 800 835
6770 (Toll free in the USA & Canada);
Europe, Middle East and Africa: Tel: +44 (0)
1865 778315
Asia Pacific: Tel: +65 6511 8000;
Japan: cs-japan@wiley.com; Tel (toll-free): 005
316 50 480
Visit www.interscience.wiley for full-text searches
and register for e-mail alerts.
Advertising: Managed from atadverts@gmail.
com. 2009: Full page: 548.88. 1/2 page 296.79.
1/3 page col. 203.66 . 1/2 col. 103.07, plus
VAT if applicable. Repeat discounts. Copy date:
7th of odd months. www.therai.org.uk/pubs/
advertising.html.
 RAI 2009. Printed in Singapore by COS Printers
Pte Ltd.
Perspectivism:
`Type' or `bomb'?
Guest editorial by Bruno Latour
Bruno Latour 1
Perspectivism: `Type' or `bomb'?
Peter J. Aspinall 3
`Mixed race', `mixed origins' or what?
Generic terminology for the multiple
racial/ethnic group population
Mark Maguire 9
The birth of biometric security
Roberto J. González 15
Going `tribal': Notes on pacification in
the 21st century
Magnus Marsden 20
Talking the talk: Debating debate in
northern Afghanistan
CoMMent
Gustav Peebles 25
Hoarding, storing value and the credit
crunch: A comment on Hart/Ortiz and
Gudeman (AT 24[6])
Stephen Gudeman 25
Hoarding wealth: When virtue becomes
vice: A response to Elyachar/Maurer,
Applbaum and Peebles (AT 25[1] and in
this issue)
Fabian Muniesa 26
The description of financial objects: A
comment on Hart/Ortiz (AT 24[6])
ConFeRenCeS
Caitlin Fouratt, Janny Li,
taylor nelms 27
AAA encounters: Challenging
boundaries and rethinking ethics,
American Anthropological Association
107th Annual Meeting
neWS 28 CALenDAR 30 CLASSIFIeD 31
2 ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 25 NO 2, APRIL 2009
It was then possible for Descola, as he explained, to add
to this pair of contrasting rapports another pair in which
the relations between humans and non-humans were either
similar on both sides (what he called `totemism') or different
on the two sides (a system he termed `analogism').
Rather than covering the globe with a single mode of relations
between humans and non-humans which then served
as a background for detecting `cultural' variations among
many peoples, this background itself had become the
object of careful enquiry. People differ not only in their
culture but also in their nature, or rather, in the way they
construct relations between humans and non-humans.
Descola was able to achieve what neither modernists nor
post-modernists had managed: a world free of the spurious
unification of a naturalist mode of thought.
Gone was the imperialist universality of the `naturalists',
but a new universality was still possible, one that allowed
careful structural relations to be established between the
four ways of building collectives. Descola's big project
was then to reinvent a new form of universality for anthropology,
but this time a `relative', or rather, `relativist' universality,
which he developed in his book Par del nature
et culture (2005). In his view, Viveiros was more intent on
ever deeper exploration of just one of the local contrasts
that he, Descola, had tried to contrast with a number of
others by casting his net more widely.
Two perspectives on perspectivism
Although they have been friends for a quarter of a century,
no two personalities could be more different. After
the velvet undertone of Descola's presentation, Viveiros
spoke in brief aphoristic forays, waging a sort of Blitzkrieg
on all fronts in order to demonstrate that he too wanted to
reach for a new form of universality, but one even more
radical. Perspectivism, in his view, should not be regarded
as a simple category within Descola's typology, but rather
as a bomb with the potential to explode the whole implicit
philosophy so dominant in most ethnographers'interpretations
of their material. If there is one approach that is totally
anti-perspectivist, it is the very notion of a type within a
category, an idea that can only occur to those Viveiros calls
`republican anthropologists'.
As Viveiros explained, perspectivism has become something
of a fashion in Amazonian circles, but this fashion
conceals a much more troublesome concept, that of `multinaturalism'.
Whereas hard and soft scientists alike agree
on the notion that there is only one nature but many cultures,
Viveiros wants to push Amazonian thought (which
is not, he insists, the `pensée sauvage' that Lévi-Strauss
implied, but a fully domesticated and highly elaborated
philosophy) to try to see what the whole world would
look like if all its inhabitants had the same culture but
many different natures. The last thing Viveiros wants is
for the Amerindian struggle against Western philosophy to
become just another curio in the vast cabinet of curiosities
that he accuses Descola of seeking to build. Descola, he
contended, is an `analogist' ­ that is, someone who is possessed
by the careful and almost obsessive accumulation
and classification of small differences in order to retain a
sense of cosmic order in the face of the constant invasion
of threatening differences.
Note the irony here ­ and the tension and attention in
the room increased at this point: Viveiros was not accusing
Descola of structuralism (a critique that has often been
levelled at his wonderful book), since structuralism, as
Lévi-Strauss has it, is on the contrary `an Amerindian
existentialism', or rather `the structural transformation of
Amerindian thought' ­ as if Lévi-Strauss were the guide,
or rather the shaman who allowed Indian perspectivism
to be transported into Western thought in order to destroy
it from the inside, through a sort of reverse cannibalism.
Lévi-Strauss, far from being the cold, rationalist cataloguer
of discrete contrasted myths, had learned to dream and
drift like the Indians, except that he dreamed and drifted
through the medium of card indexes and finely turned paragraphs.
But what Viveiros criticized was that Descola risks
rendering the shift from one type of thought to another `too
easy', as if the bomb he, Viveiros, had wanted to place
under Western philosophy had been defused. If we allow
our thought to hook into Amerindian alternative logic, the
whole notion of Kantian ideals, so pervasive in social science,
has to go.
To which Descola replied that he was interested not
in Western thought but in the thought of others; Viveiros
responded that it was his way of being `interested'that was
the problem.
Decolonizing thought
What is clear is that this debate destroys the notion of
nature as an overarching concept covering the globe, to
which anthropologists have the rather sad and limited duty
of adding whatever is left of differences under the tired old
notion of `culture'. Imagine what debates between `physical'and
`cultural'anthropologists might look like once the
notion of multi-naturalism is taken into account. Descola,
after all, holds the first chair of `anthropology of nature'
at the prestigious Collge de France, and I have always
wondered how his colleagues in the natural sciences are
able to teach their own courses near what for them should
be a potent source of radioactive material. Viveiros' concern
that his bomb has been defused may be off the mark:
a bright new period of flourishing opens for (ex-physical
and ex-cultural) anthropology now that nature has shifted
from being a resource to become a highly contested topic,
just at the time, by chance, when ecological crisis ­ a topic
of great political concern for Viveiros in Brazil ­ has reopened
the debate that `naturalism' had tried prematurely
to close.
But what is even more rewarding to see in such a disputatio
is how much we have moved from the modernist
and then post-modernist predicament. Of course, the
search for a common world is immensely more complex
now that so many radically different modes of inhabiting
the earth have been freed to deploy themselves. But on
the other hand, the task of composing a world that is not
yet common is clearly opened to anthropologists, a task
that is as big, as serious and as rewarding as anything they
have had to tackle in the past. Viveiros pointed to this in
his answer to a question from the audience, using a somewhat
Trotskyite aphorism: `Anthropology is the theory and
practice of permanent decolonization'. When he added that
`anthropology today is largely decolonized, but its theory
is not yet decolonizing enough', some of us in the room
had the feeling that, if this debate is any indication, we
might finally be getting there. l
1. `Perspectivism and
animism': Debate between
Philippe Descola (Collge de
France) and Eduardo Viveiros
de Castro (National Museum of
Rio de Janeiro). Maison Suger,
Institute of Advanced Studies,
Paris, 30 January 2009.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo
1992. From the enemy's
point of view: Humanity and
divinity in an Amazonian
society. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Descola, Philippe 2005. Pardel
nature et culture. Paris:
Gallimard.
Bruno Latour is Professor at
the Institut d'Etudes Politiques
(Sciences Po) in Paris. His
website is www.bruno-latour.fr;
his email is
assisbl@sciences-po.fr
Fig. 1. Tupinamba Indians
attacked by demons, c.1562,
engraving by Théodore de Bry,
from Jean de Léry, Navigatio
in Brasiliam Americae (detail),
Musée de la Marine, Paris.