Debbora Battaglia

Comparative Relativism: Symposium on an Impossibility

This introduction to the Common Knowledge symposium titled “Comparative Relativism” outlines a variety of intellectual contexts where placing the unlikely companion terms comparison and relativism in conjunction offers analytical purchase. If comparison, in the most general sense, involves the investigation of discrete contexts in order to elucidate their similarities and differences, then relativism, as a tendency, stance, or working method, usually involves the assumption that contexts exhibit, or may exhibit, radically different, incomparable, or incommensurable traits. Comparative studies are required to treat their objects as alike, at least in some crucial respects; relativism indicates the limits of this practice. Jensen argues that this seeming paradox is productive, as he moves across contexts, from Levi-Strauss’s analysis of comparison as an anthropological method to Peter Galison’s history of physics, and on to the anthropological, philosophical, and historical examples offered in symposium contributions by Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Marilyn Strathern, and Isabelle Stengers. Comparative relativism is understood by some to imply that relativism comes in various kinds and that these have multiple uses, functions, and effects, varying widely in different personal, historical, and institutional contexts that can be compared and contrasted. Comparative relativism is taken by others to encourage a “comparison of comparisons,” in order to relativize what different peoples—say, Western academics and Amerindian shamans—compare things “for.” Jensen concludes that what is compared and relativized in this symposium are the methods of comparison and relativization themselves. He ventures that the contributors all hope that treating these terms in juxtaposition may allow for new configurations of inquiry.

E.T. culture : anthropology in outerspaces

Anthropologists have long sought to engage and describe foreign or “alien” societies, yet few have considered the fluid communities centered around a shared belief in alien beings and UFO sightings and their effect on popular and expressive culture. Opening up a new frontier for anthropological study, the contributors to E.T. Culture take these communities seriously. They demonstrate that an E.T. orientation toward various forms of visitation—including alien beings, alien technologies, and uncanny visions—engages primary concepts underpinning anthropological research: host and visitor, home and away, subjectivity and objectivity. Taking the point of view of those who commit to sci-fi as sci-fact, contributors to this volume show how discussions and representations of otherworldly beings express concerns about racial and ethnic differences, the anxieties and fascination associated with modern technologies, and alienation from the inner workings of government. Drawing on social science, science studies, linguistics, popular and expressive culture, and social and intellectual history, the writers of E.T. Culture unsettle the boundaries of science, magic, and religion as well as those of technological and human agency. They consider the ways that sufferers of “unmarked” diseases such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome come to feel alien to both the “healthy” world and the medical community incapable of treating them; the development of alien languages like Klingon; attempts to formulate a communications technology—such as that created for the spaceship Voyager —that will reach alien beings; the pilgrimage spirit of UFO seekers; the out-of-time experiences of Nobel scientists; the embrace of the alien within Japanese animation and fan culture; and the physical spirituality of the Raelian religious network. Contributors. Debbora Battaglia, Richard Doyle, Joseph Dumit, Mizuko Ito, Susan Lepselter, Christopher Roth, David Samuels

Extreme: Limits and Horizons in the Once and Future Cosmos

This paper introduces a special collection of Anthropological Quarterly for examining “the extreme” in contemporary modernity. Drawing upon sites of political, scientific, and economic engagement that source specifically to the extraterrestrial, we argue that the figure of the extreme shapes an analytic of limits and ever-opening horizons—epistemological and physical—provoking new understandings of humanness, environment, temporality, and of inter-species life as we think we understand it, here on Earth. It follows that this framework is not restricted to the environment of outer space: the analytic of the extreme, which is broadly salient in contemporary imagination and social practice, opens to examination of how all modern subjects are capable of upending modernity’s everyday spaces and timelines. The assembled papers cohere around this commitment. Coming in from very different angles, each seriously considers the possibility of outcomes not anticipated by analytic or vernacular explanatory frameworks, while refusing to commit anthropologists to the dangers of prognostication.

Coming in at an Unusual Angle: Exo-Surprise and the Fieldworking Cosmonaut

Valentin Lebedev is a pioneer of space and earth science in Russia. He is also the first ethnographic diarist of outer space. In 1982, while “on orbit” for 211 days as a fieldworking cosmonaut, Lebedev produced a thickly descriptive account of the intimate sociality and technoculture of the Soviet space complex Salyut 7. Crafted to defamiliarize (ostranenie) a spaceworld that publics saw as flawlessly engineered and managed, the diary is an argument for the value of exospheric (exo-) surprise in human experience. But on another level, we learn that the surprise is on humans who would claim to conquer “space-as-itself”—a “zero gravity” environment of force fields both extremely inhospitable to life as we know it and also generative of life in all its expressions.

OF ARCHIPELAGOS AND ARROWS

These comments on Eduardo Viveiros de Castro’s article, “Zeno and the Art of Anthropology,” emphasize, first, his engagement with ideas of Gilles Deleuze that open to the political dimension of Amerindian perspectivism and to a “multinatural” understanding of human-to-environment relations; these form the foundation of postdevelopment action in this part of the world and orient actors’ “postures of attention” to power relations. Second, this commentary raises questions concerning arrows—archetypal of the protentive element of Amerindian “speculative ontology” and, as such, symbolic vehicles of a hopeful environmental consciousness and activism. The interesting point of arrows in this context is that their protention can and must take into account both forward-and also backward-looking time, in order to fulfill their promise of finding their mark. The matter of their intended effectiveness being sharply focused on the figures of their human sources, parabolic course, and targets, both reversals of direction and the ground they would traverse can be lost sight of. Ironically, focusing on figures invites attention to their backgrounds: expanses of earth or air and gaps between origin and contact can remind us, for example, of all that can interfere with or defeat intended goals, particularly in a lifeworld of multisited human and nonhuman agency. Overall, this response to Viveiros de Castro takes an aesthetico-political approach to his article. It comments on the important work of recognizing how uncemented values of Amerindians can be recombined with Western concepts to shape an ongoing “found object” relationship of Western and Amerindian intellectual traditions that is capable of addressing complexities of shifting power in modern times.