Rejoinder to Descola’s ‘Biolatry: a surrender of understanding’

Tim Ingold*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This comment offers a brief rejoinder to Phillipe Descola’s ‘Biolatry: A Surrender of Understanding’, and concludes an exchange that began with my article ‘A Naturalist Abroad in the Museum of Ontology: Philippe Descola’s Beyond Nature and Culture’. I review the definitions of such key terms as naturalism, interiority and production, and the issues that divide us with regard to the possibility of unmediated knowledge, the salience of structural models, and the future of comparative anthropology. See also: A Naturalist Abroad in the Museum of Ontology: Philippe Descola’s Beyond Nature and Culture10.1080/00664677.2015.1136591 Biolatry: A Surrender of Understanding (Response to Ingold’s A Naturalist Abroad in the Museum of Ontology) 10.1080/00664677.2016.1212523

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)329-332
Number of pages4
JournalAnthropological Forum
Volume26
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Jul 2016

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Discipline of Anthropology and Sociology, The University of Western Australia.

Keywords

  • comparative anthropology
  • interiority
  • models
  • Naturalism
  • production
  • semiosis

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Rejoinder to Descola’s ‘Biolatry: a surrender of understanding’'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this