Life in the Pluriverse: Towards a Realistic Pluralism

Levi Bryant recently called for a cross-blog discussion concerning what he perceives to be the problematic relationship between ethnographic pluralism and ontological realism. His call was instigated by Jeremy Trombley’s post on the so-called “ontological turn” in contemporary anthropology and ethnography. Trombley articulated what might be described as an ontology of the concept, wherein concepts are not representational frames that mirror (or fail to mirror) the world, but participatory interventions that dis- and/or re-assemble our thoughts and practices. Trombley writes:

“a concept or conceptual assemblage – ontology, feminism, queer theory, post-colonial theory, etc. – enables us to understand differently, and in understanding differently, it enables us to also be differently… What the ontological turn does is…[allow] us to reflect not only on the way we represent, but on the way that we exist and the kinds of relations we compose through our practices.”

Before I get into what such an anti-representationalist ontology of concepts does to our understanding of Truth (hint: Truth is not pre-given but enacted), I should mention a few other bloggers who have already jumped into the conversation. Phillip of the blog Circling Squares (which I need to explore more!) responded to Bryant’s original post by pointing out that thinkers like Latour and Stengers (and Whitehead before them) have been articulating a rather robust form of pluralistic realism for some time now (i.e., cosmopolitics). Terence Blake of Agent Swarm also chimed in, arguing that Bryant’s “realism” seems to be no more than old-school scientism, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that it is so difficult to square with pluralism.

Bryant believes that the social constructionist turn of the 90s was politically valuable in that it improved the social standing of many oppressed minorities. But he rejects what he perceives to be the extension of such constructionism beyond politics into ontology. Bryant writes:

“In arguing that everything is a social construction, the pluralist undermines the possibility of public deliberation about truth. Everything becomes an optional narrative or story about the world, an optional picture of reality, where we are free to choose among the various options that most suit our taste.  It’s not a surprise that so much of the philosophy during the 90s in both phenomenology and post-structuralism culminated in a theological turn.  For where everything, including science, is just a narrative or story about what being is, why not just go ahead and take a leap of faith?”

I’m not sure if Bryant intends to include cosmopolitical thinkers like Latour and Stengers in his punching bag category “social constructionist.” I don’t understand how he could. If he does insist on labeling them as such (which seems to me to just obscure their true positions–but if he insists…), then, building on Whitehead’s categoreal scheme, I’d retort that “society” for these cosmopolitical thinkers has to be understood in the most general sense as an ontological category, not simply a human “construct.” The human organism is already a society of cells, each of which is itself a society of organelles, each of which is a society of molecules, each of which is a society of atoms, each of which is a society of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and so on… Realities are decomposed and recomposed by associations between and among actual occasions–occasions which are never simple unities but are always multiple and so always “in the making.” Which brings me to the concept of “construction”: if we are working within a process ontology, construction also needs to be ontologized. Biological evolution is a gradual process of construction wherein what begins as psychological desire later becomes physiological reality (to take the example of evolution by sexual selection). The physical world is itself continually constructed by what physicists are now calling “geometrogenesis.” This is not to say that the physical world is a human construct, mind you. The picture that is beginning to become clear as a result of contemporary physical cosmology is that space and time are the co-emergent products of the real activity of pure energy, something both non-human and pre-physical/pre-extended (Whitehead called it Creativity; physicists call it the quantum vacuum). If the physical world (as described by contemporary physics) is a network of relations always “in the making,” and not some collection of pre-given particles obeying eternal laws, then a “true” understanding of it must also always remain open-ended. There is no Science or Universal Reason that might once and for all pronounce upon the nature of the Real. There are many sciences, many methods, many rationalities. Science as it is actually practiced now and in the past has always already been a pluralistic enterprise. As Latour showed in Science in Action, what ends up being called “Nature” is always a consequence of some more or less temporary settlement of controversies. Every new generation of scientists stirs up new controversies about what the aging generation thought was settled.

The cosmopolitical perspective that I’d want to defend certainly does not “undermine the possibility of public deliberation about truth”–it is (once we accept an enactivist account of truth) the condition of its possibility! It is Bryant’s position that rules out such public deliberation by insisting on declaring war on all those human societies that reject materialism. Latour has plenty to say about the vacuity of the notion of “matter,” which I’ve discussed elsewhere and won’t get into here.  Accepting a cosmopolitical form of ontological pluralism doesn’t at all require that we think of all beliefs and belief-systems as created equal. Nor does it imply that social groups “freely choose” their beliefs simply as a matter of “taste.” The ontological commitments of any given society typically emerge out of long multi-generational processes of historical development. They aren’t just made-up on a whim by individual members. Further, the world view of a social group is as integral to their their livelihood and well-being as their food, shelter, and water, not simply an optional aesthetic veneer. As Trombley suggested, belief-systems enact ways of being and are not just representations.

Ontological pluralism is a commitment to multiple realities, many of which overlap, but some of which remain (at least for now) irreconcilable. It is not a commitment to tolerance of multiple perspectives on a single reality. This latter option, as Bryant points out, would be a rather trivial form of pluralism. It is also a rather colonialist and scientistic take on the Real. Anyone trying to argue that contemporary science has somehow provided us with a unified account of an objective reality that holds true for all people in all places and times has their work cut out for them. Several hundred years of “modern” science has only succeeded in making the world stranger, more dangerous, and more multifarious than it was for ancient and medieval peoples.

Am I saying that a ayahuasca shaman’s encounter with the spirit of the jaguar is just as real as the particle physicist’s encounter with the Higgs boson? Yes, most definitely. In fact, the shaman’s encounter is way more concrete and direct than the physicist’s, since the latter has to wait for a world-wide network of supercomputers to process the information for him, which only after many repeated trials, journal publications, and so on becomes what most (but not every!) physicist will agree is something like a Higgs boson. Even after all this painstakingly detailed mediation (“science in the making”), the Higgs boson remains now and forever a theoretical construct. The ayahuasqueros’ encounter with the jaguar spirit is anything but. Sure, a cognitive neuroscientist might claim to be able to explain the shaman’s experience as a “brain malfunction” brought on by the ingestion of a psychedelic plant brew. But this remains a reductive etic description and not a complete explanation. The neuroscientist should participate in an ayahuasca ceremony for himself before he goes declaring war on the shaman. At least, this is what a pluralist ethics would entail. Such shamanic practices have functioned quite well in their own tribal context for thousands of years. Instead of assuming from the get go that anyone who doesn’t describe the world in your favored language is deluded, try to get to know them, to understand not only what their world is like, but how their world is brought forth. Follow the injunctions through which they enact their world. Then, once you’ve explored it from the inside, by all means judge their enactment, contest it, translate its features into other terms to show why it is unethical, dangerous, or misguided.

I’ll leave you with an excerpt from an essay of mine on the ethical implications of enactivism and the need for a pluralistic planetary mythos (Logos of a Living Earth):

One consequence of the enactive approach is that the Cartesian quest for epistemological certainty becomes but the expression of a particular cognitive domain made possible by the abstract languages of mathematics, precise measurements of machine technologies, and controlled laboratory environment. If the nervous system is operationally closed, its function cannot be to modestly mirror an external, objective reality, even if the modest witnesses are highly trained scientists allied with powerful instruments that extend their sensory reach. The operational closure of the nervous system forestalls a representational account of its activity, as its role is maintaining coherence, rather than correspondence, between organism and environment. New techniques may open up previously hidden worlds, as when Galileo first turned a telescope to the sky and revealed the moons of Jupiter in 1610, or Hooke first recognized cells through a microscope in 1665, but one cannot speak of finally discovering the real as if it existed independently of our bodily and inter-bodily experience of its meaning.

As Haraway has suggested (p. 199, 1997), “…objectivity is less about realism than about intersubjectivity.” She yearns for us to come to see objectivity as a way of “forming ties across wide distances” (ibid.), instead of as the privileged and modest perspective of self-invisible European men who remain somehow unpolluted by their ambiguously situated bodies (p. 23-32, ibid.). If science can claim relative epistemological privilege, it is not the result of transcending culture, but of the ever-accelerating, ever-expanding mobility and combinability of the traces scientists and their cyborg surrogates have constructed within their networks. Outside of these special networks of labs, machines, shared languages, and centrally controlled policy initiatives, scientific facts have little relevance. As Latour put it, “we might compare scientific facts to frozen fish: the cold chain that keeps them fresh must not be interrupted, however briefly” (p. 119, Latour, 1993).


16 Comments Add yours

    1. Very thorough and balanced response to these issues. Thanks, Leon.

  1. Scu says:

    Solid post. Here was my own contribution to this (I worked more directly through William James in that post, but Stengers and Latour were clearly in the background).

    And of course, Levi’s charge of politeness and tolerance is odd, as well. I mean, Stengers wrote a whole book called The Curse of Tolerance, that makes her feelings about tolerance, and how that does not play a role her cosmopolitics, pretty clear (as I know you know, just adding on).

    Anyway, thank you for your post.

    1. Thanks for the link… Ah you pulled out all the James quotes I would have liked to cite in my response to Bryant. Nice going. I loved the ending:

      “Pragmatism, in this way, is deeply discomforting. No ground to think from, and a pluralistic world that necessarily means partial stories, unfinished questions, threads of work lost and, perhaps, never found. Oh, but the joy as well. The ability to shrug off certain annoying debates with, “Well, I’m basically a pragmatist,” and then move on with your work.”

      Bryant expressed concern with such an ontology of partial stories by referencing the Bush administration’s claim to “make reality.” I have just as much political distaste for the reality they tried to construct as Bryant does, but I think his choice of examples ends up proving the pragmatist’s point about the nature of reality (be it the nature of human sociopolitical reality or of cosmological reality). If the whole world is “in the making,” then there is no solid ground to stand on upon which the truth might be pronounced. Truth is an event, a process, and it must be constructed (and can be constructed better or worse). In the case of the Bush admin., it was constructed for the worse, but nonetheless, for some time after 9/11, their truth was the truth. Thankfully, that truth-event has mostly past. The point here is exactly as you say, the pragmatic understanding of reality is deeply discomforting, since it acknowledges the contingency of what ‘passes’ for truth at any given time. We can’t simply fall back on “Reason” or “Science” to keep us safe from poorly constructed truths.

      1. Scu says:

        Sorry, I responded to this comment over at my place, before I saw you post this here.

  2. mary9macrina says:

    These discussions on an authentic pluralism reminded me of an essay by Alberto Maturana in which he asks as an observer of plurality , what constitutes the act of explaining the real;

    1. mary9macrina says:

      “We, modern western human beings, members of the greco-judeo-christian cultural tradition to which modern science belongs, like to explain and to ask questions that demand an explanation for their answer. Furthermore, if we are in the mood of asking a question that demands an explanation, we become pacified only when we find an explanatory answer to our question. However, what does take place in an explanation? What must happen for us to say that given phenomenon or situation has been explained?”….. from

  3. ggoldbergmd says:

    One key implication of all of this is the primacy of ethical action over knowledge. As was most clearly articulated by Emmanuel Levinas. In a pluralistic omniverse, what counts is how we treat each other ( I.e. what embodied intersubjectivity leads us to) more than what we think we know. The Other must precede us and we are to be held to the impossible but obligatory standard of infinite responsibility for the Other. This is not the ‘theological turn’! This is the moral surfacing of our species from what Whitehead called the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness that has been the pervasive theme of Western philosophy. And, hopefully, just in the nick of time for the Earthbound and for Gaia.

  4. ggoldbergmd says:

    If Pluralism is to survive Ontology, then Ethics must precede Ontology. This is the connection that links James to Levinas powering the Ethical Turn over the Ontological Entrenchment.
    Genocide (Samantha Power’s “Problem from Hell”) is the ultimate expression of an anti-pluralistic Ontology that professes to seek Truth in an egoistic rampage that undermines Pluralism ultimately taking the Other down. And, ultimately, the Self/Perpetrator with Her.

  5. ggoldbergmd says:

    And who is the exemplar, the ‘genius’, of embodied intersubjectivity? In accordance with the work in developmental cognitive neuroscience due to Colwyn Trevarthen and others, it is the human infant, the ultimate defenseless dependent being whose very existence hinges on the successful engagement of the other beings in their interpersonal space. And from there the capacity to generalize from concrete experience through the development of the capacity for abstraction (and language) supports the emergence of a self-serving, self-preserving Ontology of the World. Yet at each moment of our lives we are each vulnerable to the intentionality of others, as the current spate of mass shootings of innocents in Western countries and the genocidal actions occurring in places like Syria and the South Sudan clearly demonstrate. Knowledge is not an ultimate protection. Only universally accepted moral bounds on behavior can do that. Ethics must precede Ontology if MAD (mutually assured destruction) is to be evaded.

  6. terenceblake says:

    Trying to give some concrete content to the discussion of “pluralism” in abstract terms, I take Brun Latour’s realist pluralism and find that it does not correspond to Levi Bryant’s reductive stereotype:

  7. Michael- says:

    With minor disagreements (that I will hopefully address soon) I really enjoyed this post Matt. Truly. I think it is a sophisticated take on the enactive/ecological approach to knowledge. Great stuff.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s