In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Peter Skafish The Relative Native:
The event is freebut please register in advance. Cannibal metaphysics Amerindian perspectivism Eduardo viveiros de castro I once had the intention of writing a book that would have been something of a homage to Deleuze and Guattari from the point of view of my discipline; it would have been called Anti-Narcissus: Anthropology as Minor Science.
The project was to characterize the conceptual tensions animating contemporary anthropology. From the moment I had the title, however, the problems began.
I quickly realized that the project verged on complete contradiction, and the least misstep on my part could have resulted in a mess of not-so anti-narcissistic provocations about the excellence of the positions to be professed. It was then that I decided to raise the book to the rank of those fictional works or, rather, invisible works that Borges was the best at commenting on and that are often far more interesting than the visible works themselves as one can be convinced of from reading the accounts of them furnished by that great blind reader.
Rather than write the book itself, I found it more opportune to write about it as if others had written it.
The implications of this question would doubtlessly seem clearer were the problem approached from the other end. Are the differences and mutations internal to anthropological theory principally due to the structures and conjunctures of the social formations, ideological debates, intellectual fields and academic contexts from which anthropologists themselves emerge?
Is that really the only relevant hypothesis? The question of Anti-Narcissus is thus epistemological, meaning political. If we Analysis of amerindian perspectivism philosophy essay all more or less agreed that anthropology, even if colonialism was one of its historical a prioris, is today in the process of completing its karmic cycle, then we should also accept that the time has come to radicalize the reconstitution of the discipline by finishing the job.
But perhaps not everyone is in agreement. There are those who still believe that anthropology is the mirror of society. Not, certainly, of the societies it claims to study — of course no one is as ingenuous as that anymore whatever… — but of those in whose bowels its intellectual project was engendered.
We all know the popularity in some circles of the thesis that anthropology, because it was supposedly exoticist and primitivist from birth, could only be a perverse theatre where the Other is always represented or invented according to the sordid interests of the West. No history or sociology can camouflage the complacent paternalism of this thesis, which simply transfigures the so-called others into fictions of the Western imagination having no say in the matter.
To deny that would be to accept a unique kind of constructivism that, at the risk of imploding in on itself, inevitably circles back to the same easy story: The de-exoticization of the indigenous, which is not so distant from all this, has the countereffect of a rather strong exoticization of the anthropologist, which is likewise nearby.
Proust, who knew a thing or two about time and the other, would have said that nothing appears older than the recent past. Blocking this type of epistemo-political reflex is one of the principal objectives of Anti-Narcissus.
The viability of an authentic endoanthropology, an aspiration that has for numerous reasons come to have first priority on the disciplinary agenda, thus depends in a crucial way on the theoretical ventilation that has always been favoured by exoanthropology — a science of fieldwork in a truly important sense.
A more profound examination of these styles and their implications, particularly from the perspective of the elaboration of an anthropological concept of the concept, should be capable of showing their importance to the genesis, now under way, of a completely different conception of anthropological practice.
In sum, a new anthropology of the concept that can counter-effectuate a new concept of anthropology, after which the descriptions of the conditions of the ontological self-determination of the collectives studied will absolutely prevail over the reduction of human as well as nonhuman thought to a dispositif of recognition: Or, perhaps more modestly, pace Goody: And what about the even more gaping absences that would make certain others nonhumans or, rather, make the nonhumans the true others?
All these absences resemble each other. For, in truth, taking them for the problem is exactly the problem, which thus contains the form of the response: The burden of man is to be the universal animal, he for whom there exists a universe, while nonhumans, as we know but how in the devil do we know them?
As for non-Occidental humans, something quietly leads us to suspect that where the world is concerned, they end up all the same reduced to the smallest portion of it.
We and we alone, the Europeans, would be the realized humans, or, if you prefer, the grandiosely unrealized, the millionaires, accumulators, and configurers of worlds. Western metaphysics is truly the fons et origio of every colonialism.
In the event that the problem changes, so too will the response. It is not a question of erasing the contours but of folding and making them dense, of diffracting and making them iridescent.
|Eduardo Viveiros de Castro: The recent work of Viveiros de Castro is not too well known by American [English] readers.|
|On the other hand, animal presence also receives a distinctive concrete articulation within|
|In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Cannibal Metaphysics by Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, and:|
Although they are all known figures, their work has not at all received the recognition and diffusion it deserves — even, and especially in one case, in their countries of origin. And to these can be added many more recently arrived others, who will go unnamed since it would be largely impossible to do otherwise without some injustice, whether by omission or commission.
One should note that, on the basis of a critical analysis of the notion of affinity, conceived by South American Indians as the point of articulation between opposed terms — human and divine, friend and foe, relative and foreign — our Brazilian colleagues have come to extract what could be called a metaphysics of predation.African humanities, Amerindian perspectivism, collaborative (mutual and reciprocal) knowledge construction, self/person and other, symbol and myth Danilo Silva Guimara˜es’s insightful essay (Guimara˜es, ) is inspired by the.
The Amerindian perspectivism described above is, then, itself a theory of equivocation, not simply a case of it. Mere constructivism, that is, the well-known argument that there is no natural and prior reality, that the real is itself constructed by discourse, etc., is clearly not enough to account for what takes place here.
Cannibal metaphysics: Amerindian perspectivism. but please register in leslutinsduphoenix.comal metaphysics Amerindian perspectivism. The observations also marvellously sum up, as we will see, the content of the present essay, which was in fact written by one of these Brazilian colleagues.
In the eight decades since the publication of Sánchez Reulet’s essay, there has been a remarkable proliferation of work concerned with the identity of Latin American philosophy.
In addition, anthologies, specialized works, and critical editions of Latin American philosophical classics have been published. Analysis Of Amerindian Perspectivism Philosophy Essay Brazilian anthropologist Viveiros de Castro has been an essential force in new strands of anthropology within the last decade, and his foremost contribution has been.
This work proposes an analysis of the relations between G. Lebrun () practices as a historian of philosophy and the conceptual constellation between the notions of "discourse" and "absolute knowledge" in his work.