As a social practice, mathematics remains shrouded in mystery and seems inaccessible for outsiders. It comes across as a closed formal system that is largely considered independent of the people who practise it and hence totally impervious to sociological investigation. This article seeks to question these assumptions and is offered as a contribution to an emerging sociology of mathematics and abstraction. The argument unfolds on an ethnographic register and follows the reactions to a particular mathematical symbol in two different contexts. The first stretch of the description tracks the responses to this symbol on an online forum devoted to discussing mathematics and the other draws from a classroom context the author was part of as a participant observer. Thus focussing on just one aspect of mathematical practice, the way in which symbols are handled by practitioners, it attempts to underline the character of mathematics as a distinctive form of sociality. In the process it raises and seeks to address the following questions. What do controversies over and reactions to mathematical symbols tell us about mathematics as a practice? What roles do symbols play in the mathematical discourse? And, can a broader sociological perspective on mathematical symbolism be developed?

The crisis, following the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic across the globe, has been unprecedented in terms of the extent to which it has been mathematised, such that both our understanding of it and responses to it have been largely guided by mathematical or epidemiological models. Mathematical certainties seem to have provided a reliable guide for action and anticipation in the midst of looming uncertainties unleashed by the spread of the virus. States, too, have mostly relied on mathematical projection to dole out policies for precaution and control, as the strange ‘fix’ between prevailing uncertainties and mathematical certainties, has provided the rationale for acting urgently and, literally, imposingly. Instead of attending to the fragility and diversity of human worlds mathematics of the pandemic has produced sweeping, but, ‘critical sounding’ generalisations and governments, world-over, have been too ready to act on their behest, often to the great detriment of the working poor and marginalised sections of society. This article offers a critical evaluation of this ‘fix’ and more generally of the mathematics of the pandemic with the help of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics. The argument is that in the absence of a proper appreciation of the sociality of mathematics we create certain pictures of the mathematical, with very concrete consequences at the level of policy and implementation, which demean and dehumanise instead of helping us out in times of need and despair. A case is made for a mathematics which is more sensitive to our vulnerabilities, desires and capabilities, as an alternative to solutionism which has come to dominate our life with and in crisis.

Mathematics is often seen as an epitome of cold objectivity and astounding infallibility. Particularly for the outsiders, it comes across as an extremely rigid and closed system which seems impenetrable owing to its very specific and technical language. This article problematises these assumptions and seeks to study mathematics as a social practice with insights drawn from an anthropology of language and concepts, Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mathematics and semiotics. Using the anthropological insight that a language is always embedded in a form of life, this article shows how mathematical practice generates its own conventions and forms of language use. In particular, two dimensions of language use in mathematics are delineated and their consequences for further research are drawn out. In the first part of the article, the role of concepts in the discourse of mathematics is explored and in the second it is shown how applying a rigid distinction between syntax and semantics to mathematical language obstructs our understanding of its fluid and dynamic character. The argument unfolds through an analyses of interviews, texts and classroom sessions and shows how mathematical practice is heavily context bound and mathematicians often display an ethnographic attentiveness towards their work. The general tenor of the description is such that it attempts to trace the ethical dimension latent in mathematical practice and suggests a possibility of exploring it as a form of life. Connected to this thought is the argument that like any other practice, mathematical practice generates its own forms of reflections which cannot simply be assimilated to philosophical/theoretical knowledge. The question whether this action knowledge regarding mathematics has some relation to the South Asian location where the ethnography unfolds is also tentatively explored.