1

ContextsforComparativeRelativism

CasperBruunJensen

Fromexperienceitappearsthatthetermcomparativerelativismconjures

imagesofincongruenceandparadox.Ithinkthisisnotabadthing.Perhapsitit

isevennecessary.Yet,thetermisnotmeantasamererhetoricalteaser,but

ratherasanideathatenableustoposesomespecificproblems.

Concretely,wehavethoughtofcomparativerelativismasaprovocative

placeholderunderwhichcertaintypesofscienceandtechnologystudies,

broadlythoseaffiliatedwithBrunoLatour’ssociologyoftranslation,certain

typesofculturaltheory,certaintypesofprocessphilosophyandcertaintypesof

socialanthropologycanbefruitfullybroughttogether.

Thecomparativemethoditselfappearstobeanexceptionallyelusive

construction,bothasregardswhatistobecomparedandwhatprovidesthe

methodfordoingso.Iwillsaymoreaboutthismomentarily.Asforrelativism,it

maybenotedthattheepistemologicalconcernsthathaveguidedmuch

anthropologicaltheoryforquiteawhile,haslongbeenchallengedbyactor‐

networktheoryandotherSTSapproaches.Thesefocusedonthedurable

constructionofnetworksofpeopleandthings,throughprocessesthatcreated

scalesofinfrastructure,technology,scienceandpoliticsandrenderedthem

irreversible.Thesestudiesshowedaninterestinvariableontologiesofscale‐

building.Ratherthanstartingwithanepistemologicalinterestinhowdifferent

actorsinterprettechnologies,say,suchstudiesinvestigatedtheprocesses

throughwhichtechnologiesbecomerecalcitrantactors,resistingandredefining

humanintentionsandinterpretiveschemes.Theminimalontologyatplayhere

wasoneinwhichanyentity–humanornonhuman‐wouldbeassumedcapable

ofacting,whereasthespecificnetworksthroughwhichitmightdemonstratethis

capacity,aswellastheparticularpropertiesitwouldturnouttoexhibit,would

beopenforempiricalandanalyticalscrutiny.Ratherthanstartingwithpre‐given

categories,suchcategoriesandtheirattendantscalingdeviceswouldbeseenas

emergentfromstudiedsituations.

2

Althoughthetitleofthecolloquiumiscomparativerelativismthe

ambitionis,therefore,nottodevelopaframeworkunderwhichthecomparative

andtherelativistic,asthesetermshavebeentraditionallyconceived,maybe

properlyintegrated.Ratherdifferently,weexpectthejuxtapositionofthese

termstooperateasadevicewithwhichbothmaybemadetoimplode,hopefully

creatingroomfordifferentconfigurationsofinquiry.Iwouldliketobriefly

providesomecuesaboutwhatItaketobeinvolvedinsuchreconfiguration.

ModelsandComparisons

TheworkofourspeakerswillfigureprominentlybutIcanstartby

referringtononeotherthanClaudeLévi‐Strauss.Inthechapter“Social

Structure”oftheStructuralAnthropologyvol.1heconsidersthe

differentiatedstatusthenotionofthecomparativeheldamongsomeof

theancestralfiguresofanthropology.ForauthorssuchasRadcliffe

Brown,LéviStraussnoted,theproblemwithearlieranthropologywas

thatitwasfullof“allegedcorrelations”betweenthestructuresofdiverse

societies,whichwere,however,“lackingempiricalsupport”.Intheplace

ofsuchspuriousanalyticalpractice,hearguedforputtinganthropology

ona“broadinductivebasis”.Incontrast,Lévi‐StraussreferstoDurkheim

whosereferencepointwasscientificlaw:whensuchalaw“hasbeen

provedbyawell‐performedexperiment,thislawisvaliduniversally”.

Lévi‐Straussformulatetheanthropologicaldilemmaasoneof“eitherto

studymanycasesinasuperficialandintheendineffectiveway;orto

limitoneselftoathoroughstudyofasmallnumberofcases,thusproving

thatinthelastanalysisonewelldoneexperimentissufficienttomakea

demonstration”.

AshasoftenbeenremarkeduponLévi‐Strausswasnotafraidof

findinginspirationinthenaturalsciences,aninclinationthathas

occasionallybeenevaluatedasnegative.Givenhiswayofposingthe

questionofcomparisonbyinvokingscientificlaw,itmightbeworthwhile

toconsiderhowsuchlawsoperateinthenaturalsciences.Indeed,thisis

thetaskSTShistorianPeterGalisonhascarriedoutwithspecific

3

referencetothatepitomeofnaturalscience,modernphysics.Oneofthe

thingsGalison’sanalysismakesclearistheuncertaintyofthefactualin

thiscontext.Heoutlinestwomodesofmakingknowledgeinmodern

physics,whichhedesignateswiththetermsimageandlogic.

Image‐orientedexperimentalistsadheretoamimetictraditionthat

aimstopreservetheformofnaturethroughvisualtechniquesof

representation.Forthisreasontheyexhibitaseriouscommitmenttothe

productionofso‐called‘goldenevents’,imagesofsuchclarityand

distinctnessthattheyinvariablycommandacceptance.Meanwhile

theoristsworkwithinalogictraditionthataggregatelargeamountsof

datatomakestatisticalargumentsfortheexistenceofaparticleoreffect

(19).Whereastheorists“sacrificesthedetailoftheoneforthestabilityof

themany”(20),experimentalistsreliesontheideathat“information

aboutasingleeventrenderedwithfulldetailisinallrelevantways

equivalenttoinformationdeducedfrompartialdetailsaboutmanyevents

ofthesameclass”.

Totheimagetradition,the“passivityoftheirsystemsof

registration”ensuresthattheoreticalassumptionsdonotenteranalysis.

Tothestatisticallyorientedlogicaltradition,however,“anythingcan

happenonce”,forwhichreasonsingularcasesandgoldeneventsremain

dubiousclaimantstoepistemicauthority.

Unsurprisinglytherearedifferencesbetweenphysicists’and

anthropologists’debatesbutperhapsnottheonesthatwouldbe

expected.Theproblemisnotthatanthropologycannotadoptanatural

scienceviewpointsinceitisaninterpretive,fuzzysocialscience.Forwhat

Galison’sanalysis–asmuchotherSTS–showsisthatevenwithinthe

hardestofnaturalsciencescomparableuncertaintiesastowhatcountsas

factualobtain.

Acentraldifference,however,emergesinthatLévi‐Strauss’s

argumentmixeswhatGalison’sphysicistsholdapart.Astheimage‐

people,Lévi‐Straussaimsforauniquecasetodemonstrateapoint.But

unlikethem,hedoesnotpurporttoestablishthecasethroughstrictly

inductivemeans,untaintedbytheory.Onthecontrary,heissquarelyon

4

thelogicians’ssideasregardsthenecessitytomodelandtheorize.Heis

not,however,inlinewiththeirinsistencethatcomparablestatistical

materialisrequiredtoadducefacts.

Lévi‐Straussmadethemoregeneralobservationthatthefidelityof

anthropologiststothecomparativemethodmayinfactpreciselybe

“soughtinsomesortofconfusionbetweentheproceduresusedto

establish…models”.HisargumentisthatDurkheim’sclaimforscientific

lawscanholdonlyunderastatisticalregimerelyingonthegatheringof

largeamountsofdata.Yetsuchdatacanonlybeacceptable“insofaras

theyareallofthesamekind”,ademandthatcannotbemetby

ethnography.ThusLévi‐Strauss’seventuallyproposesthattheway

forward“liesintheselectionofthe‘case’,whichwillbepatternedsoasto

includeelementswhichareeitheronthesamescaleasthemodeltobe

constructedoronadifferentscale”(289),aconclusionthatraisesall

kindsofrelativisticquestionsconcerningtheevokedelements,scales,

modelsandtheirrelations.

WhenIchoosetodwellonthisitisbecauseitseemstomethatthe

questionsopenedbyLévi‐Straussanalysisremainsworthexploring.

MightoneimagineversionsofSTSandsocialanthropologythatstudied

goldenevents,singularyetcapableofcountingasademonstration?Such

wouldhavetobestudiesthateschewedcommonnotionsofcomparison,

havinglearnedwithNietzschethat“todreamoftwoequalforces,evenif

theyaresaidtobeofoppositesensesisacoarseandapproximatedream,

astatisticaldream”(Deleuze43).Butwhatmightcountasagoldenevent

forthesedisciplines?Whatmightsuchsingulardemonstrationsshow?

Whereandhowmightcomparativepotentialofadifferentorder

neverthelessemergeinsuchprojects?

Also,giventhatanalyticaltermsareneverexternaltoobjectsof

inquiry,onewouldwanttoaskwhatarethecontextsofconstructionthat

mightenableSTSandsocialanthropologytoletsucheventsemerge?

AlthoughIleavethesequestionsintheopenfornow,Iventurethatone

versionofcomparativerelativismisaboutrecuperatingthenotionofthe

goldenevent.

5

EventsofMultinaturalism

SomethingalongthoselinescouldbereadfromViveirosdeCastro’swork

onAmerindianshamans.Inapaperentitled“TheCrystalForest:Noteson

theOntologyofAmazonianSpirits”,ViveirosdeCastrodiscussesan

expositiongivenbytheYanomamiDaviKopenawaonshamanicspiritsin

adialoguewithanthropologistBruceAlbert.Throughtheseconversations

KopenawapresentsAlbertwithanaccountoftheworld’sstructureand

history,anarrativethatalsodoubles,asViveirosdeCastro’sargues,“as

anindignantandproudclaimfortheYanomamipeople’srighttoexist.”

Wearewitnessinginthisdocumentaveritable“inventionofculture”,

ViveirosdeCastrosuggests,whichissimultaneously“amasterpieceof

‘interethnicpolitics”.Comparativerelativismcanbeusedtocharacterize

someofthethingsthatareparticularlyfascinatingaboutthissituation.

ThedescriptionofYanomamicosmologyisunsettlinganddifficult

tounderstand:“Thespiritshavedancedforshamanssincetheprimordial

timesandsotheycontinuetodancetoday.Theylooklikehumanbeings

buttheyareastinyasspecksofsparklingdust.Tobeabletoseethemyou

mustinhalethepowderoftheYakoanahitreemany,manytimes…Those

whodon’t‘drink’itremainwiththeeyesofghostsandseenothing”(1).

Thenarrativeinterweavesspiritsandanimals,shamansandthedeadina

waythatleadsViveirosdeCastrotoargueforits“cosmological

exemplarity”,intermsofarticulatingideasthataredistributedacross

tribesintheregion.Doesthismeanthatitconstitutessomethinglikea

goldenevent?

PerhapsitdoesbutifthatisthecaseIwouldventurethatitisalso

becauseofanadditionalaspectoftheexposition,onewhichhas

immediatebearingontheissueofcomparativerelativism.Itisthat‐‐in

ViveirosdeCastro’ssuggestion‐‐Kopenawaisnotsimplydescribingtoa

Whitepersoncertainepistemologicalcontentsofashamanicworldview.

Ratherheisconductingshamanisminaction.He“speaksaboutspiritsto

WhitesandequallyaboutWhitesonthebasisofspirits”.Whatisstriking

aboutthisisthatKopenawaisexplainingthedifferentialbasisof

6

comparisonandevaluativecapacityofYanomamiandWhitestoWhites

fromthepointofviewofYanomamicosmology.Asweheard,inorderto

beashamanabletocommunicatewithspiritsonemustinhalepowder

many,manytimes.Otherwiseoneretainstheeyesofghostsandsee

nothing.TomakeunderstandingeasierKopenawaoffersacomparison:

“IttakesasmuchtimeasWhitestaketolearnthedesignoftheirwords”.

ShamansaretaughttodreambyinhalingpowderasWhitesaretaughtto

dreambyreadingbooks.Comparisonofakindbutofunlikewithunlike,

sincethedreamsareincommensurate.Ananalogyofsorts–butdrawnto

bridgeotherwiseincommunicableontologicaldomains.Relativism,

perhaps,butcertainlyfromanunusualangle.

Infact,ViveirosdeCastrohimselfresiststhedesignationrelativism.

HereferstoAmerindiancosmologyasaspecificformofperspectivism.

Kopenawa’sdevice:powderistoShamanswhatbooksaretowhites

remindsoneofotherexamplesfromtheAmerindianliterature:where

humansseerottenmeat,vulturesseegrilledfish;wherehumansseea

mudhole,tapirsseeagreatceremonialhouse.Ofcoursetheprevious

examplewasinreverse:ashumansbothyouandmeseebooksor

powder:butwhatweseethroughtheseobjects:theworldassuch–

differs.ThisisnotrelativismViveirosdeCastrosaysbutratherakindof

culturaluniversalismthatgivesrisetonaturalrelativity–or

multinaturalism.TheseareofcourseWesterntermsbutthepointisthat

AmerindianthinkingpotentiallywreakshavocwithestablishedWestern

notionsoftherelativeandtheuniversal,thenaturalandthecultural.The

relativisticcomparisonofWesternviewsasseenfromtheWestand

IndianviewsseenfromtheAmazon,withIndianviewsseenfromthe

WestandWesternviewsseenfromtheAmazonenabletherethinkingof

differencesandpossiblerelationsbetweenthetwofrombothsides–orall

‐‐simultaneously.Intheleastitmightbeventuredthatadispositionfor

attuningtomanyworldssimultaneouslyandasensitivityandwillingness

tohesitatewhenengagingquestionofhowsuchworldsmightbe

connectedwithoutunderminingdifference,isatplayhere.

7

RelativistAnxietiesintheWest

IhavemadetheseforaysintoAmerindiananthropologytomakethequestionsof

comparisonofwhatandforwhom,relativismwithregardstowhat,obvious,and,

perhaps,uncomfortable.Euro‐Americanuniversities,however,iswherethe

notionoftherelative,orrelativisticarousethemostfeeling.BarbaraHerrnstein

Smith,inparticular,hasdocumentedthetroubledhistorynotofrelativismperse

butofitsinvocation,notleastasachargeagainstresearchinfieldsincluding

anthropologyandSTS.PhantomheresyisthetermSmithusestodesignatethe

imputedmoral,politicalorscientificillsfollowingfromadoptingrelativistic

methodologicalortheoreticalstances,includingthefamoussymmetrypostulates

ofDavidBloorandBrunoLatourbutincludingalsoawidearrayofarguments

fromscholarsofsuchdiversebentasRuthBenedict,RichardRortyandMichel

Foucault.

Itisinterestinginthisregardtonotethatrelativismcanfunctionasa

chargefromtwosides:eitherasrenderingheterogeneoussituations

homogenousorviceversa.If,asinoneofSmith’sexamples,newerhistoriesof

Holocaustcontextualizetheseeventsthroughcomparisonwithother“massive

state‐sponsoredslaughters”(21),thiscanbeseenbycriticsasarelativizing

movethat“lessendramaticdifferences”andcreate“immoralequivalences”.

RelativismunderminesthecapacitytoseetheHolocaustasauniqueevent,

becauseitencouragescomparisonofeverything.Buttheoppositeargumentis

alsomade:thatrelativismdisablescomparisonofanything.Literaryscholar

SatyaMohanty,forexample,holdsthatitisaconsequenceofrelativistviewsthat

“itisnecessarytoconceivetheOtherasaradicallyseparableandseparateentity

inordertocommandourrespect”andthat“therearenocommonterms

betweencultures”.Mohantythinksthatitfollowsthattherelativistneedsnot

taketheotherseriously.Toavoidthispresumedconsequences,notionssuchas

minimallysharedrationalityhavebeenproposed.Ithasbeenputtouse,for

example,torefuteEvans‐Pritchard’sanalysisofZandewitchcraft.Thisfamous

studybeganwiththepresuppositionthatwitchcraftmadesensewithinZande

cosmology,evenifwitches,accordingtoEvans‐Pritchard,couldnotstrictly

speakingexist.

Itispreciselythiskindofrelativismthat,accordingtocriticssuchas

8

Mohanty,ispatronisinganddisablinginspiteofitsrhetoricoftolerance.It

rendersothersbenightedbecauseitassumesthatWesternknowledgemaking

practicesfirmlyestablishwhatcanandcannotexistbutdeniesthecapacityto

knowthistrulytotheother.Toanextentthiscriticismofrelativismconverges

withIsabelleStengers’sargumentsagainst“tolerance”buttheproposedsolution

isentirelydifferent.WhereasMohantypreferstoextendauniversalhuman

capacityforrationalagencytopeopleeverywhereandevaluatetheiractivities

onthatbasis(nodoubtfindingAzandemagicirrationalonthatscore)thelatter

insteadsuggestthatidealssuchastheminimallyrationalareproperlyapplicable

nowhere,includingintheWest.AswelearnfromSmithandotherspeakersitis

notthattheyaremorelikeusthanwemightthink,butratherthatnotevenwe

arelikeourimagesofourselves.

PartialComparisons

Ireturnonceagaintothequestionofwhatwecompareforandwhatis

compared.ClearlyitmatterswhetheroneisintheshoesofAlbert,Kopenawaor

ViveirosdeCastrocommentingonboth;whetherwereadEvans‐Pritchardto

learnaboutZandewitchcraftormagicatlarge,orBarbaraHerrnsteinSmithto

learnaboutthedebatesthisanalysishasengendered.Thescaleofcomparison

influenceswhatcountsasdata,analysis,interpretationandtheory.Scalesof

investigationandanalysisfluctuate.Thisproperlyrelativepointisoften

obscured,however,byconventionalcategories–Strathern’spersuasivefictions

–thatcometodefinewhatcountsasfactandwhatasinterpretation,whatasthe

explainedandwhatasthatwhichexplains.

Althoughthisobservationmightsuggestthatkeyquestionshererelateto

subjectivestand‐pointoranalyticalchoice,MarilynStrathern’sworksuggests

thatitisneitherasindividualizedorepistemologicalasthat.Itisnot

individualizedbecausethesocialscientistisalwayspartofmultiplepractices

andnetworksthatenableandconstrainwhatcanbeseenasproperscalingof

phenomenainspecificsituations.Itisalsonotasepistemologicalasonemight

imaginebecauseso‐calledtheoriesandideasexistonthesamelevelasso‐called

practicesandactions.Wemightthussaythatthetheoreticalandtheempiricalis

equallyandfullyempiricaloralternativelythatitisequallyandfullyconceptual.

9

Theproblemsengenderedbythissituation,sowellanalyzedbyStrathern,isthat

thequestionofhowtoimplicateconcepts,facts,ideasandpractices(toretain

theterms)cannotberesolvedingeneralbutmustalwaysbesolvedinparticular.

InmyviewitisoneoftheparticularmeritsofStrathern’sthatshehaspaid

sustainedandexplicitattentiontothesemobilerelations.

InthenewintroductiontoPartialConnectionsshenotesthat:“Ihaverun

togetheranalysis,interpretationandtheoreticaldiscussionasthoughtheywere

allpartitionedfrom‘data’(orcross‐culturalcomparison)”(5ofprint).Butasthe

‘asthough’indicates,itisevidentthatthiscuttingresultsfrom“critical

decisions”pertainingtothelevelandscopeofanalysisandtotheobservations

deemedworthcomparing.Comparison,ratherthanamethodthatcanbeusedto

holddistinctsocialorculturalsystemsagainsteachother(Strathern1987254)

becomesthecentralproblem,onethatisboundwithquestionsandpoliticsof

scale:whatcomestolookbig,small,importantorinsignificant,forwhomand

fromwhere,andwhy?(intro3ofprint).Andsincenogeneralcomparative

methodisaroundtodothejobforher,Strathernisextraordinarilymeticulousin

accountingforthecontextsofconstructionthathaveenabledhertofigure(and

figurein)somany“ethnographicalmoments”orperhaps“goldenevents”.

PersuasiveFictionsandEventsofScience

Strathern’sdiscussionofthepersuasivefictionsofanthropologycanbe

interestinglycontrastedwithIsabelleStengers’sanalysisoffactsandfictionsin

physics.Stengers’sarguesthatnaturalscientistssuchasGalileostrugglednot

onlyagainstrecalcitrantnaturebutalsoagainsttheingrainedscepticismof

society.Conqueringscepticismisherphrasefortheeffortsscientistsputinto

makingfactsoutofwhatareinitiallyhunches,suppositions,fictions.Buttheaim

ofGalileowasnottoproduceapersuasivefiction.Itwastoproducewhatwould

becomeincontestablefact.Stengersarguesthatconqueringscepticisminorder

toproducesuchfactsisrelatedtoatripledelegationofpower.Thatis:1)the

powerofthescientist,bymeansofhisapparatus2)toconferupontheobject,the

power3)toreturntothescientistthepowertolethimorherspeakinitsname.

Thenonhumanobjectiscentraltothisendeavourandsoisthereductive

ambition:persuasivefictionsarenotenoughforphysicists,atleastnotintheir

10

ownestimation.AsStengersexplainssheis“passionatelyinterestedinadomain

ofhumanpracticesthevalueofwhichdependsupon,oratleastimplies,

eliminatingthecharmsofconversation”(235).Sucheliminationisthedomainof

naturalsciences,whereasthecharmsofconversationappearquitedearto

anthropologists.Andscientists’interestinachievingsucheliminationposes

problemsforthosewhowanttostudyscience.Notleastthereistheproblemof

howtosituateananalysisofmodernsciencethatisbothattentivetoscienceas

fieldsofsocial,politicalandculturalemergenceandtoofficialclaimsofscience

tobetheonesphereofhumanactivitythatispreciselynotformedbysuch

factors.

ThenotionoftheeventreappearsheresinceforStengersitiscentralin

ordertolocatethescopeofauthorityofanyclaim.Onemaybringaboutanevent

inthelaboratory,conqueringscepticismlocally,butthisconveysnorightto

controlthelifetheeventtakesonsubsequentlyinabroaderecologyofpractices.

Theproblemoccursasscientistsclaimastheirsphereofauthoritysocietyat

largeandclaimtotherighttopronounceonwhatmustbedone.Insuchcases

sciencemaybecomea“powermachine”nolongerthrivingonitsownongoing

inventionsbutratherseizing“foritsownbenefitdiverseconcretehistorical

productionsandmeanings”.Insuchsituationssciencehastakenonthemantleof

judge.

StengersfollowsDeleuzeinproposingadifferentroleforscientists(and

hereweshouldincludesocialscientists).Itisdefinedby“thinkinginfrontof”

whatwestudy.Sheisadamantthatthisdoesnotautomaticallyentailaddressing

subjectsorhelpingthem,orsharinghopeorfaithwiththem,but,rather,not

insultingthemwithourpowertojustifyeverything.Talkinginthecontextfrom

whichIquotetotheologians,Stengersinsiststhattheyoughtto“thinkinfrontof

thewitches,pagans,or…‘fetishists’”(238).Andsheasks:“whatwouldcountasa

conversation“infrontof”alltheunknownpeoplethatourwordssoeasily

disqualify,infact,evenwhenthosewordsoutwardlyspeakofmutual

appreciation,respectandlove?”(238).FollowingA.N.WhiteheadandHenri

Bergson,Stengersasksustoconsiderhownewkindsof“realtogetherness”may

beproducedevenasthevastdivergencesbetweenpeoplearerecognized.

11

EcologyofPractice

Thisambition,inmyview,isfirmlywithinthescopeofcomparativerelativism.

NotleastifoneconsidersthatStengers’secologyofpracticeisnotstratifiedwith

scienceontopofsocietybutrathercomprisesphysicistsandpsychologists,

witches,hypnotistsandjunkies,amotleycrewsharingonlyanoccasional

capacityandwillingnesstoexperimentwithcreatingsituationsinhabitedbynew

contrastsandappetites.

RecallthatLévi‐Straussafterdueconsiderationproposedthat

anthropologysticktosinglecasestudies,lettinggooftheambitiontostatistical

significance.Hedidsuggest,however,thatoneselectcaseslikelytobesuitable

asmodels;likelytofacilitatetheevent.YetasStengers’ssuggeststhereisno

methodtocreatetheevent,thereisonlytheexperimentandoccasionalsuccess.

Atthesametimetheevent,ofthesocialornaturalscientist,doesnotemergeof

itsownaccord,itisnotfoundsimplyasempiricaldatum.Itmustbesupported,

prodded,inducedandmediated.Anditmustbeconstructedinthought.The

workofStrathern,Smith,StengersanddeCastroalltestifiestothisfact.Andit

doessoinawaythatwehavetodaytakentheriskofplacingundertheterm

comparativerelativism,whichdealsinontologicaljuncturesanddisjunctures

ratherthanminimallysharedrationalities,inmultipleagentsincluding

technologiesandspirits,ratherthaninhumanintentions,narrativesand

lifeworldsalone.

Placingtheworkoftoday’sesteemedspeakersunderthesamebanner

impliescertaindangers,notleastoneofclaimingasharedprojectorsimilar

ambitionforallofthem.Idonotthinkthisisatallthecase.Ifonecantalkof

comparativerelativismasaconceptualmatrixofsorts,itholds,inStengers’s

wordsthat“ithasnoauthorityofitsown”.Notaimingtomobilizeandjudgeit

works–ifonlyitworks!–“throughinsinuationandtransformativeeffectsasan

infectiouslurefornewcreativecontrasts”(245).Theaimisnotagreementbut

alliance(248).Whetherornotsuchallianceisoccasionedhere,Ilookforward,

verymuchindeed,toseehowitplaysout.

12