By: kova setti
![]()
Anthropology beyond Humanity
This article begins with a dispute between myself and anthropologist Robert Paine about Saami reindeer herding. Do reindeer transact with humans, as humans are alleged to do with one another? Or is a transactional approach no more appropriate for humans than it is for reindeer? Just at the point when transactionalism was on the wane in anthropology, it was on the rise in psychology and the study of animal behaviour. Studies of non-human primates, in particular, likened them to Machiavellian strategists. Picking up on this idea, philosophers Michel Serres and Bruno Latour have argued that human relations are stabilised, by comparison with the animals', through the enrolment of ever more 'non-humans'. By 'non-humans', however, they mean material-semiotic mediators rather than Machiavellian transactors. In the latter capacity, as smart performers, non-humans are supposed to interact only with other individuals of their species, not with humans. The idea that social relations should be confined to intraspecific relations, however, is shown to be a reflex of the assumption that humans are fundamentally different, in their mode of being, from all other living kinds. Rejecting this assumption, I argue for an anthropology beyond the human that would turn its back both on the species concept and on the project of ethnography, and join with non-humans understood neither as material mediators nor as smart performers, but as sentient beings engaged in the tasks of carrying on their own lives.
Suomen Antropologin vuoden viimeinen numero tuli tällä viikolla postissa ja olipas kovat setit. En pysty skannaamaan mutta kannattaa katsoa kirjastosta tai vaikka ostaa (10€) tai muuten hankkia irtonumero yhteisiin paikkoihin jne. EBSCOon tulee varmaan kohta.
Ingoldin abstrakti:
Anthropology beyond HumanityThis article begins with a dispute between myself and anthropologist Robert Paine about Saami reindeer herding. Do reindeer transact with humans, as humans are alleged to do with one another? Or is a transactional approach no more appropriate for humans than it is for reindeer? Just at the point when transactionalism was on the wane in anthropology, it was on the rise in psychology and the study of animal behaviour. Studies of non-human primates, in particular, likened them to Machiavellian strategists. Picking up on this idea, philosophers Michel Serres and Bruno Latour have argued that human relations are stabilised, by comparison with the animals', through the enrolment of ever more 'non-humans'. By 'non-humans', however, they mean material-semiotic mediators rather than Machiavellian transactors. In the latter capacity, as smart performers, non-humans are supposed to interact only with other individuals of their species, not with humans. The idea that social relations should be confined to intraspecific relations, however, is shown to be a reflex of the assumption that humans are fundamentally different, in their mode of being, from all other living kinds. Rejecting this assumption, I argue for an anthropology beyond the human that would turn its back both on the species concept and on the project of ethnography, and join with non-humans understood neither as material mediators nor as smart performers, but as sentient beings engaged in the tasks of carrying on their own lives.
Sitten on Vadenilta & Salmiselta artikkeli englanniksi Energia ja kokemus -kirjan pohjalta, sekä kolme vastausta siihen.
Tässä mainos tähän hätään ja katsoo jos jotain referaattia ja pohdintaa / arviota saisi tehtyä kun saa ensin nuo luettua ja vähän makusteltua.