Page 108 - KATE_JOHNSTON_2017

[O]ur epistemology and, in particular, our perception of other modes of
identification. In this context, totemism or animism appear to us as intellectually
interesting but false representations, mere symbolic manipulations of that specific
and circumscribed field of phenomena that we call nature. Viewed from an
unprejudiced perspective, however, the very existence of nature as an autonomous
domain is no more a raw given of experience than are talking animals or kinship
ties between men and kangaroos. (Descola 1996, p. 88)

This relativist and structuralist stance challenges the claims to truth of Western naturalism

and scientific knowledge. It situates such knowledge side by side as one ecological

cosmology/epistemology amongst others, and one in which the dichotomy of nature and

culture is the structuring principle. Descola develops this argument into a grand statement

that is intended to break down once and for all the binary within the discipline of

anthropology. His stance beyond nature/culture binaries favours relationships, and he

suggests that the meaning and identities of things in the universe, whether ‘crafted by humans

or only perceived by humans’ (Descola 1996, p. 98), only exist through relationships:

Once the ancient nature-culture orthogonal grid has been disposed of, a new multi-
dimensional anthropological landscape may emerge, in which stone adzes and
quarks, cultivated plants and the genome map, hunting rituals and oil production
may become intelligible as so many variations within a single set of relations
encompassing humans as well as non-humans. (Descola 1996, p. 99)

It is clear that Descola is thinking beyond nature/culture binaries, universalism and

relativisms in the context of globalisation, in order to address contemporary hybrid conditions

in which humans and more-than-humans cannot be neatly managed by two diverse sets of

‘social devices’ (Descola 1996, p. 98). He is certainly not alone in suggesting what may be

beyond nature/culture and an agenda to break down the binary. While Descola differentiates

his proposition from that of ANT scholars like Bruno Latour and Michel Callon, the focus on

relationships is shared and so is the agenda to move beyond nature/culture dualism. ANT

advocates have proposed a way out of such premises by turning attention to networks of

96