Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

NEITHER ORDER NOR PEACE: A Response to Bruno Latour

NEITHER ORDER NOR PEACE: A Response to Bruno Latour Ulrich Translated by Patrick Camiller Bruno Latour did me the honor of an astute and detailed critique in the fall 2004 issue of , and I am glad to have the opportunity to respond. In “Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopolitics? Comments on the Peace Terms of Ulrich ”—which Latour wrote in response to my essay “The Truth of the Other”—he finds me guilty of a truly remarkable piece of superficiality: A historical anecdote, retold in a major paper by Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, may illustrate why ’s suggested approach to peacemaking is not completely up to the task. The main example that gives is the “Valladolid controversy,” the famous disputatio that Spaniards held to decide whether or not Indians had souls susceptible of being saved. But while that debate was under way, the Indians were engaged in a no less important one, though conducted with very different theories in mind and very different experimental tools. Their task, as Viveiros de Castro describes it, was not to decide if Spaniards had souls—that much seemed obvious—but rather if the conquistadors had bodies. The theory under which Amerindians were operating was that all entities share by default the same fundamental organization, which http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Common Knowledge Duke University Press

NEITHER ORDER NOR PEACE: A Response to Bruno Latour

Beck, Ulrich
Common Knowledge , Volume 11 (1) – Jan 1, 2005
Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/neither-order-nor-peace-a-response-to-bruno-latour-fNf1JNonxn
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2005 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0961-754X
eISSN
1538-4578
DOI
10.1215/0961754X-11-1-1
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Ulrich Translated by Patrick Camiller Bruno Latour did me the honor of an astute and detailed critique in the fall 2004 issue of , and I am glad to have the opportunity to respond. In “Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopolitics? Comments on the Peace Terms of Ulrich ”—which Latour wrote in response to my essay “The Truth of the Other”—he finds me guilty of a truly remarkable piece of superficiality: A historical anecdote, retold in a major paper by Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, may illustrate why ’s suggested approach to peacemaking is not completely up to the task. The main example that gives is the “Valladolid controversy,” the famous disputatio that Spaniards held to decide whether or not Indians had souls susceptible of being saved. But while that debate was under way, the Indians were engaged in a no less important one, though conducted with very different theories in mind and very different experimental tools. Their task, as Viveiros de Castro describes it, was not to decide if Spaniards had souls—that much seemed obvious—but rather if the conquistadors had bodies. The theory under which Amerindians were operating was that all entities share by default the same fundamental organization, which

Journal

Common Knowledge – Duke University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.