Ontological turn

The ontological turn is an increased interest in ontology within a number of philosophical and academic disciplines during the early 2000s. The ontological turn in anthropology is not concerned with anthropological notions of culture, epistemology, nor world views.[1] Instead, the ontological turn generates interest in being in the world and accepts that different world views are not simply different representations of the same world. More specifically, the ontological turn refers to a change in theoretical orientation according to which differences are understood not in terms of a difference in world views, but a differences in worlds[1] and all of these worlds are of equal validity.

Definitions

Ontology is the study of reality as constructed in both human and non-human worlds.[2][3] Conversely, ontology has also been understood as a process of "becoming".[4] Finally, ontology has also been defined as the set of historical circumstances through which individuals comprehend reality. However, this last definition in particular has garnered significant critics due to its similarity to definitions of culture.[5]

Philosophical influence

The field of ontology corresponds to the philosophical study of being.[6] This focus on being draws on Martin Heidegger's insights into the specific nature of what it means to "be" in the world. Heidegger's theorizing on the fundamental nature of being drew on ontological ideals that emerged from the traditions of the Platonic school.[7] In this view, the mind or the experience of being a human, does not refer to a singular entity. Instead, the mind refers to a collection of events, life events, or material objects an individual experiences. Thus, ontology relates the experience of being in the world. Further, interest in ontology is associated with a greater understanding of existence, reality, becoming, and how these concepts relate to broad categories of entities.[8]

In anthropology

Within the field of anthropology, ontological ideas first began emerging around the 1990s. However, the first influence of ontological understandings within anthropology emerged in the work of Roy Wagner, Marilyn Strathern, and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro.[9] Following these initial deliberations, the ontological turn took hold of British anthropology. From there, North American anthropologists began considering how ontology might be useful in ethnographic research. The application of ontological frameworks really gained popularity following 2010 and were brought to national anthropological attention at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Chicago,[10] where ontology became the focus of several sessions there.[11][3] After the conference one of the oldest and prominent[12] anthropology blog, Savage Minds, declared ontology to be "the next big thing"[13] in anthropological theory. This burgeoning interest in ontology spawned a number of articles that highlighted the usefulness of ontological premises in anthropological research.[14][15][16][17]

The concept of ontology and what people mean by ontology is diverse; therefore, tracing the ontological turn in anthropology remains difficult. However, if ontology refers to the study of reality then ontological anthropology incorporates theoretical and methodological elements of anthropology to a study of being or existence.[3] Ethnographies are the most widely utilized method in anthropological research.[18] While, in a theoretical sense, anthropology has contributed greatly to the concept of culture. These two elements in anthropology have broadened philosophical notions of ontology so that ontological anthropology is not simply about the world; rather, it is about the experience of being a human in the world.[3] Moreover, ontological anthropology is explicitly concerned with how humans communicate and interact with a host of non-human actors.[19] For example, as a trained biologist turned anthropologist, Donna Haraway insists on including other beings, both human and non-human, in her accounts of living with pets.[20] Finally, ontological anthropology is not claiming that individuals or communities are living in distinct universes and by crossing into a different setting you are suddenly in a different reality.[1] Instead, ontological anthropologists are claiming that we "should allow difference or alterity to challenge our understanding of the very categories of nature and culture themselves".[21]

Other turns in anthropology

Anthropology as a field has experienced a number of turns in its history, including the linguistic turn, the reflexive turn, the temporal turn, the affective turn, the literary turn, and the post-human turn. The ontological turn presents differences in cultural phenomena not as different interpretations of a singular, natural world. Rather, the ontological turn in anthropology suggests that there are alternate realities and other ways of beings that exist in parallel with our own. The proponents of this movement claim that this way of framing cultural difference is the first attempt anthropologists have made in taking the beliefs of their interlocutors "seriously" or "literally".[22] Critics of the ontological turn argue that claims of different worlds tend towards essentialism.

Political ontology is another theoretical development associated with the ontological turn.

Narrow turn towards ontology

The works of French authors Philippe Descola[23][24] and Bruno Latour,[25] and Brazilian author Eduardo Viveiros de Castro[26] gravitated towards what has been termed "a narrow ontological turn".[3] This narrow ontological turn produced much concern and curiosity within North American anthropology.

Descola's beyond nature

Philippe Descola in his work among the Amazonian Achuar suggested that the category of nature is not a human universal and therefore, should not be considered a line of anthropological inquiry.[23][27][28] The domain of "nature", Descola argues has emerged from modern, Western notions that intend to posit "nature" as ontologically real. Instead, Descola claims that "Other civilizations have devised different ways of detecting qualities among existents, resulting in other forms of organizing continuity and discontinuity between humans and nonhumans, of aggregating beings in collectives, of defining who or what is capable of agency and knowledge".[28] Meaning Descola treats animism not as some sort of mistaken belief, but as an extension of social relationality to nonhuman actors. In this sense, Descola utilizes ontology as an elementary analytical tool to explore how worlds are constructed in a manner that is distinct from the way anthropologists generally discuss worldviews. Descola proposes that anthropology can utilize ontological frameworks to best account for how worlds are composed.[28]

Viveiros de Castro's perspectivism

Eduardo Viveiros de Castro utilizes a framework perspectivism in his synthesis of Amazonian ethnographic literature.[29] His discussion of Amazonian understandings takes into account how perspectives of human versus nonhuman are not inherently different. Viveiros de Castro's reflections on perspectivism lead him to conclude that we are dealing with a perspective that is fundamentally different from those which inform Western academic thought. Viveiros de Castro's approach inherently takes an ontological approach that "allows him to see more clearly the ways in which anthropology is founded on a nature/culture divide that posits nature as a sort of universal, unitary, and existent ground and culture as the infinitely variable form of representing nature."[3]

Latour's modes of existence

Bruno Latour argues that researchers should not sort entities into the "social" world and the "natural" world. Latour argues that instead of predetermining what things are deemed as part of society and what things are deemed as part of nature, social scientists should view these categories as complex negotiations between people and their world.[30] This resistance to the division between the social and natural is integral to ontological anthropology.

Reception

Haidy Geismar, one of the critics of ontological anthropology, has claimed that in presenting others not as having different cultures, but in having different worlds, is just a novel form of essentialism.[31][32] Further, many critics of ontological anthropology have demonstrated that this framework does not take difference as seriously as it claims to. Specifically, Pierre Charbonnier, Gildas Salmon, and Peter Skafish have brought attention to the fact that many ontological anthropologists have drawn similar conclusions to anthropologists not using ontological frameworks, while also utilizing much of the same theoretical bases in their arguments.[33][1][34] However, the ontologists have responded that many of these critiques are merely attempts to reproduce the status quo.[35] In response to turn towards ontology a Group for Debates in Anthropological Theory's debate was held on 9 February 2008 in Manchester, on the motion 'Ontology is just another word for culture'.[36] Speaking for the motion were Michael Carrithers (Durham) and Matei Candea (Cambridge), and against Karen Sykes (Manchester) and Martin Holbraad (University College London). The final vote - 19 in favour, 39 against and six abstentions - reflected a general consensus that between culture and ontology, ontology might have something to contribute.[36] Marshall Sahlins in the forward to Beyond Nature and Culture, echos this consensus in his claim that ontology "offers a radical change in the current anthropological trajectory—a paradigm shift if you will—that would overcome the present analytic disarray by what amounts to a planetary table of the ontological elements and the compounds they produce".[24] Sahlins celebrates how anthropology, through this ontological focus, will return to its true focus - the state of being other.[37]

References
  1. Heywood, Paolo (2012). "Anthropology and What There Is: Reflections on 'Ontology'". The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology. University of Cambridge. 30 (1). doi:10.3167/ca.2012.300112. ISSN 0305-7674.
  2. The Development of Ontology from Suarez to Kant
  3. Kohn, Eduardo (21 October 2015). "Anthropology of Ontologies". Annual Review of Anthropology. 44 (1): 311–327. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014127. ISSN 0084-6570.
  4. Deleuze, Gilles; Guattari, Félix (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0816614011. OCLC 16472336.
  5. Carrithers, Michael; Candea, Matei; Sykes, Karen; Holbraad, Martin; Venkatesan, Soumhya (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 (2): 152–200. doi:10.1177/0308275X09364070. ISSN 0308-275X. S2CID 141506449.
  6. "Ontology | metaphysics". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 26 March 2019.
  7. Heidegger, Martin (1971). On the Way to Language (1st Harper & Row paperback ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0060638597. OCLC 7875767.
  8. "Definition of Ontology". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
  9. Holbraad, Martin; Pedersen, Morten Axel (2017). The Ontological Turn: An Anthropological Exposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107103887. OCLC 985966648.
  10. "Ontology as the Major Theme of AAA 2013". Savage Minds. 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
  11. "About AAA - Connect with AAA". www.americananthro.org. American Anthropological Association. Retrieved 26 March 2019.
  12. Price, David H. (2010). "Blogging Anthropology: Savage Minds, Zero Anthropology, and AAA Blogs". American Anthropologist. 112 (1): 140–142. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01203.x. ISSN 0002-7294. JSTOR 20638767.
  13. "On Taking Ontological Turns". Savage Minds. 25 January 2014. Retrieved 26 March 2019.
  14. Ries, Nancy (2009). "Potato Ontology: Surviving Postsocialism in Russia". Cultural Anthropology. 24 (2): 181–212. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1360.2009.01129.x.
  15. Alberti, Benjamin; Fowles, Severin; Holbraad, Martin; Marshall, Yvonne; Witmore, Christopher (2011). ""Worlds Otherwise": Archaeology, Anthropology, and Ontological Difference" (PDF). Current Anthropology. 52 (6): 896–912. doi:10.1086/662027. ISSN 0011-3204. S2CID 67817305.
  16. Course, Magnus (2010). "Of Words and Fog: Linguistic Relativity and Amerindian Ontology". Anthropological Theory. 10 (3): 247–263. doi:10.1177/1463499610372177. ISSN 1463-4996. S2CID 146430306.
  17. de la Cadena, Marisol (2010). "Indigenous Cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual Reflections Beyond "Politics"". Cultural Anthropology. 25 (2): 334–370. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01061.x.
  18. Monaghan, John and Peter Just (2000). Social and Cultural Anthropology: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 13. ISBN 9780192853462.
  19. Kohn, Eduardo (2013). How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human. Berkeley. ISBN 9780520956865. OCLC 857079372.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  20. Haraway, Donna Jeanne (2008). When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816654031. OCLC 191733419.
  21. Heywood, Paolo (19 May 2017). "The Ontological Turn". Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology. doi:10.29164/17ontology.
  22. Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo (2011). "Zeno and the Art of Anthropology: Of Lies, Beliefs, Paradoxes, and Other Truths". Common Knowledge. Duke University Press. 17 (1): 128–145. doi:10.1215/0961754X-2010-045. ISSN 0961-754X. S2CID 145307160.
  23. Descola, Philippe (1994). In the Society of Nature: A Native Ecology in Amazonia. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521411035. OCLC 27974392.
  24. Descola, Philippe; Lloyd, Janet (2013). Beyond Nature and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226145006. OCLC 855534400.
  25. Latour, Bruno (2013). An Inquiry Into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cambridge, Massachusetts. ISBN 9780674724990. OCLC 826456727.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  26. Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo; Skafish, Peter (2014). Cannibal Metaphysics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9781937561970. OCLC 939262444.
  27. Descola, Philippe; Pálsson, Gísli (1996). Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives. London: Routledge. ISBN 9780203451069. OCLC 1081429894.
  28. Descola, Philippe (2014). "Modes of Being and Forms of Predication". HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory. 4 (1): 271–280. doi:10.14318/hau4.1.012. ISSN 2575-1433. S2CID 145504956.
  29. Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo (1998). "Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism". The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 4 (3): 469–488. doi:10.2307/3034157. JSTOR 3034157.
  30. Latour, Bruno; Porter, Catherine (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, Massachusetts. ISBN 978-0674948389. OCLC 27894925.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  31. Geismar, Haidy (2009). "On Multiple Ontologies and the Temporality of Things". Material World. Retrieved 26 March 2019.
  32. "Turn, Turn, Turn". Public Books. 2017. Retrieved 1 April 2019.
  33. Charbonnier, Pierre; Salmon, Gildas; Skafish, Peter (2017). Comparative Metaphysics: Ontology After Anthropology. London. ISBN 9781783488575. OCLC 929123082.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  34. Abramson, Allen; Holbraad, Martin. Framing Cosmologies: The Anthropology of Worlds. Manchester. ISBN 9781847799098. OCLC 953456922.
  35. Pedersen, Morten Axel (2012). Common Nonsense: A review of certain recent reviews of the 'ontological turn'. OCLC 842767912.
  36. Rollason, William (June 2008). "Ontology – just another word for culture?". Anthropology Today. 24 (3): 28–31. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8322.2008.00593.x. ISSN 0268-540X.
  37. Bessire, Lucas; Bond, David (August 2014). "Ontological anthropology and the deferral of critique". American Ethnologist. 41 (3): 440–456. doi:10.1111/amet.12083.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.