2013
DOI: 10.1177/0308275x13490310
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Group for Debates in Anthropological Theory (GDAT), The University of Manchester: The 2011 annual debate – Non-dualism is philosophy not ethnography

Abstract: (2013) The group for debates in anthropological theory (GDAT), The University of Manchester: the 2011 annual debate -non-dualism is philosophy not ethnography. Critique of anthropology, 33 (3). pp. 300-360.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The difference I have in mind here concerns the currently unfashionable aesthetic-formalism of dualist structuralism, and the currently fashionable aestheticexperimentalism (for want of a better term) of ostensibly non-dualist theories such as perspectivalism, posthumanism, and postpluralism. A case in point, I suggest, may be found in 'The Group for Debates in Anthropological Theory', which in 2011 proposed the magnificently provocative (and inescapably dualist) motion 'Non-dualism is philosophy not ethnography' (Venkatesan et al 2013). Michael Scott, in proposing the motion-and in repeatedly advocating for what he called 'methodological nondualism' (Scott quoted in Venkatesan et al 2013: 303, 308, 340-342, 346-347, 353)-highlighted a key point of consensus among anthropological theorisations of nondualism, namely that: Non-dualism is the inverse of a modern Euro-American ontology often labelled Cartesian or Kantian dualism.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The difference I have in mind here concerns the currently unfashionable aesthetic-formalism of dualist structuralism, and the currently fashionable aestheticexperimentalism (for want of a better term) of ostensibly non-dualist theories such as perspectivalism, posthumanism, and postpluralism. A case in point, I suggest, may be found in 'The Group for Debates in Anthropological Theory', which in 2011 proposed the magnificently provocative (and inescapably dualist) motion 'Non-dualism is philosophy not ethnography' (Venkatesan et al 2013). Michael Scott, in proposing the motion-and in repeatedly advocating for what he called 'methodological nondualism' (Scott quoted in Venkatesan et al 2013: 303, 308, 340-342, 346-347, 353)-highlighted a key point of consensus among anthropological theorisations of nondualism, namely that: Non-dualism is the inverse of a modern Euro-American ontology often labelled Cartesian or Kantian dualism.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ontology referring to the consideration of being or what it means for something or somebody to be (Packer & Goicoechea, 2000), our perspectives highlight nondualist ontological assumptions. We are cognizant of the impact of these philosophical stances on the prioritization of relations over entities (Venkatesan et al., 2013) and processes over outcomes in both the field work and analysis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even if the universe and the pluriverse exist alongside each other as ‘partially connected’ (Strathern, 2004) worlds, we must be careful not to replace one existential commitment (of the one-world world and of separation) with another (the pluriverse and relationality) in our sense-making practices. Scott warns us against distinguishing ‘two ontological types’: one separational, Cartesian ontology located in the ‘West’ opposed to a relational, nondualist ontology of the ‘Rest’ (Scott in Venkatesan et al, 2013: 306). In substituting our ontological commitments with relationality, there is a looming temptation to reinstate an essentializing distinction between the universe and the pluriverse.…”
Section: An Uncanny Understanding Of International Politicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ontological shift that needs to occur in IR is for the pluriverse to become a heuristic device, not a vehicle to propose a single alternative ontology (Blaser, 2014: 53). This demands, as Scott argues, a methodological nondualism, ‘one that seeks, not to impose itself globally, but to grant actual nondualisms and essentialisms equal possibility – one that seeks to elicit difference and multiplicity from others’ (Venkatesan et al, 2013: 308). IR thus needs to entertain a world of many worlds as a methodological engagement.…”
Section: An Uncanny Understanding Of International Politicsmentioning
confidence: 99%