Much energy has been devoted over the last decade to the so-called ontological turn in the social sciences, and in anthropology in particular. A number of statements, critiques, and discussions of this position are now available (e.g., Viveiros de Castro 2002; Henare et al. 2007; Jensen and Rödje 2010; Pedersen 2011; Holbraad 2012; Ishii 2012; Candea and Alcayna-Stevens 2012; Blaser 2013; Paleček and Risjord 2013; Scott 2013), and its implications for anthropological research are being concertedly explored and passionately debated (e.g., Venkatesan et al. 2009; Alberti et al. 2011; Viveiros de Castro 2011; Laidlaw 2012; Ramos 2012; Pedersen 2012; Strathern 2012). The following set of position papers represent contributions to a well-attended roundtable discussion held at the 2013 annual meeting of the American Anthropological in Chicago. The purpose of the roundtable was to explore the theoretical positions and methodological projects pursued under the banner of ontology, focusing particularly on the political implications of the “turn,” including its potential pitfalls.
The participants were invited to address such questions as, Why have social scientists turned to the concept of ontology in the ways that they have? Why is the move as controversial as it is proving itself to be, at least among anthropologists? What explicit and implicit political projects does the turn to ontology (as well as various critiques of it) evince? Does the ontological turn open up new forms of cultural critique and progressive politics, or does it represent a “closet-culturalist” and potentially dangerous rehearsal of past essentialisms? What, in short, does the ethnographic commitment to ontology “do”—for our engagements and collaborations with the people with whom we work, and for anthropology’s role within the global intellectual and political landscape at large?
To instigate the discussion, the session’s organizers, Martin Holbraad and Morten Axel Pedersen, joined Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, who also contributed to organizing and chairing the session, to write a position paper addressing these questions. The paper was distributed to the participants in advance (and in hard copy to members of the audience on the day of the discussion) as a concise and synthetic statement of the three authors’ position on the politics of the ontological turn. Inevitably, as is the way of jointly authored papers (and making full virtue of the necessary brevity of the genre), the position is “more than one and less than many.” Remaining faithful to the spirit of a roundtable discussion, the participants’ subsequent statements are reproduced here more or less as they were presented in Chicago, with the addition of similarly brief statements by Marisol de la Cadena, Matei Candea, and Annemarie Mol, who were unable to participate. Some participants chose to respond directly to the organizers’ position paper, while others refer to it only obliquely or not at all. In what follows, the statements appear in the order in which they were presented in Chicago, with the three further contributions added at the end, in alphabetical order.
The table of contents for the statements appears below.
Alberti, Benjamin, Severin Fowles, Martin Holbraad, Yvonne Marshall, and Christopher Witmore. 2011. “‘Worlds Otherwise’: Archaeology, Anthropology, and Ontological Difference.” Current Anthropology 52, no. 6: 896–912.
Blaser, Mario. 2013. “Ontological Conflicts and the Stories of Peoples in Spite of Europe: Toward a Conversation on Political Ontology.” Current Anthropology 54, no. 5: 547–68.
Candea, Matei, and Lys Alcayna-Stevens. 2012. “Internal Others: Ethnographies of Naturalism.” Cambridge Anthropology 30, no. 2: 36–47.
Henare, Amiria, Martin Holbraad, and Sari Wastell, 2007. Thinking Through Things: Theorising Artefacts Ethnographically. London: Routledge.
Holbraad, Martin. 2012. Truth in Motion: The Recursive Anthropology of Cuban Divination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ishii, Miho. 2012. “Acting with Things: Self-Poiesis, Actuality, and Contingency in the Formation of Divine Worlds.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 2, no. 2: 371–88.
Jensen, Casper Bruun, and Kjetil Rödje, eds. 2009. Deleuzian Intersections in Science, Technology and Anthropology. Oxford: Berghahn.
Laidlaw, James. 2012. “Ontologically Challenged.” Anthropology of This Century, no. 4.
Paleček, Martin, and Mark Risjord. 2013. “Relativism and the Ontological Turn within Anthropology.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 43(1): 3-23.
Pedersen, Morten Axel. 2011. Not Quite Shamans. Spirit Worlds and Political Lives in Northern Mongolia. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Pedersen, Morten Axel. 2012. “Common Nonsense: A Review of Certain Recent Reviews of the ‘Ontological Turn.’” Anthropology of This Century, no. 5.
Ramos, Alcida R. 2012. “The Politics of Perspectivism.” Annual Review of Anthropology41:481–94.
Scott, Michael W. 2013. “The Anthropology of Ontology (Religious Science?).” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 19, no. 4: 859–72.
Strathern, Marilyn. 2012. “A Comment on ‘the Ontological Turn’ in Japanese Anthropology.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 2, no. 2: 402–5.
Venkatesan, Soumhya, Michael Carrithers, Karen Sykes, Matei Candea, and Martin Holbraad. 2010. “Ontology is Just Another Word for Culture: Motion Tabled at the 2008 Meeting of the Group for Debates in Anthropological Theory, University of Manchester.” Critique of Anthropology 30, no. 2: 152–200.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 2011. “Zeno and the Art of Anthropology: Of Lies, Beliefs, Paradoxes, and Other Truths.” Common Knowledge 17, no. 1: 128–45.
Posts in This Series
At first blush, “ontology” and “politics” make strange bedfellows. Ontology evokes essence, while politics, as modern, democratic, multiculturalist citizens ten... More
Ontological anthropology seeks to open us to other kinds of realities beyond us. What are the stakes? Doing anthropology ontologically addresses this political ... More
One of the key political stakes of the ontological turn lies less in concrete, actual politics than in a certain at once philosophical and anthropological polit... More
Words are dear here where we are charged with commenting on the potential of the concept of ontology for contemporary anthropology—thus the condensed and clippe... More
There is enough of the Marxist that remains in me to make me unable to think of politics without thinking about capitalism. So I want to use this intervention t... More
In this intervention I would like to contrast different ways in which some versions of science and technology studies (STS) and some versions of anthropology ha... More
This panel urges consideration of what an ethnographic commitment to ontology does, and specifically of the politics of ontology. This seems an important questi... More
The turn to ontology has established at least one indispensable insight: it has called attention to the fact that entities are intra-relational as well as inter... More
A claim that emerges about at about the halfway mark of Holbraad, Pedersen, and Viveiros de Castro’s (2013) paper provides my beginning: “The anthropology of on... More
Because we can only know in relation to something else, this discussion of the Politics of Ontology gets to the heart of the anthropological project. Ontology p... More
Here are some things familiar to many archaeologists: thermoluminescence; electron spin resonance; X-ray fluorescence; scanning electron microscopy; inductively... More
The position piece by Holbraad, Pedersen, and Viveiros de Castro (2013) offers an engaging account of how politics and the ontological turn might fit together. ... More
I want to engage the position paper by Holbraad, Pedersen, and Viveiros de Castro (2013) by bringing to the fore an ethnographic moment that proposed itself as ... More
The term ontology is sexy. These days, in parts of anthropology, it seems able to promise the possibility of escape, of running ahead, of allowing academic work... More