The Political Ontology of

Doing Diference . . . and

Sameness
by Mario Blaser
This article is part of the series The Politics of Ontology
In this intervention I would like to contrast diferent ways in which some
versions of science and technology studies (STS) and some versions of
anthropology have explored ontological politics. Conversations like the
one staged in this panel composed to some extent !y representatives of
!oth have !een going on for sometime now so it is a !it unfair to make
a strict distinction of "camps.# $owever for the purpose of this
discussion let me play with what I perceive as diferent initial emphases%
on the one hand the emphasis of STS on enactment& on the other hand
the emphasis of anthropology on alterity. The STS's emphasis on
enactments has rendered for us ontological multiplicity& a call to dwell
on !ecomings rather than !eing& and a form of politics that is
fundamentally concerned with how realities are shaped into a given form
or another. The anthropological emphasis on alterity in turn has given
us multiple ontologies (that is ethnographic descriptions of the many(
fold shapes of the otherwise)& an in)unction not to explain too much or
try to actuali*e the possi!ilities immanent to other's thought !ut rather
to sustain them as possi!ilities& and as a corollary a politics that initially
hinges upon the hope of making the otherwise visi!le so that it !ecomes
via!le as a real alternative.
+hat happens if we cross(check these emphases, -rom the perspective
of an emphasis on alterity STS(in.ected notions of ontological
multiplicity and !ecomings (expressed in terms of emergences .uidity
material(semiotic assem!lages and so on) seem to leave no way out for
the people descri!ed% those are not necessarily the terms with which
they would descri!e themselves/ Conversely from the perspective of an
emphasis on enactments the anthropological penchant for foregrounding
diference seems to put the cart in front of the horse% diference comes
!efore an account of how it gets enacted.
In the position paper shared !y the organi*ers I notice an attempt to
!ring closer these emphases. The authors do pay attention to
enactment !ut in a recursive fashion and to make the point of why
ontologically(oriented anthropological analyses are intrinsically political%
!asically !ecause they "0gurate# the future through their very
enactment they "do# diference as such. This 0guration of a future
a!undant in diference is presented to us as a "good#% this is the political
value of doing ontologically(in.ected anthropology.
If I am correct in reading the position paper as advocating a certain
good then in spite of the authors argument to the contrary
ontologically(oriented analyses do not ofer an alternative to imperatives
a!out what it should !e they are one such imperative. 1nd I am
informed here !y intellectual traditions often la!eledIndigenous which
in translation of course will alert us that once you have associated
ontology with enactment it follows that any kind of analysis or account
carries in its !elly a certain imperative a!out what it should !e. $ence
whether you do diference or sameness and in more or less explicit
ways you are already enacting a certain imperative.
2ow if we accept that all kinds of accounts are e3uivalent as
enactments we come right !ack to the fundamental political 3uestion of
STS inspired analyses% what kinds of worlds are !eing done through
particular accounts and how do we sort out the good from the !ad. 1s
you may have noticed if we accept that all accounts are enactments we
also end up in a position that is pro!lematic for the ontologically(inclined
anthropologist% in making accounts e3uivalent as enactments we are
doing sameness and leaving no way out for our interlocutors partners
and circumstantial political foes who would not descri!e their accounts
as enactments. $ere is where the in)unctions not to descri!e too much
or actuali*e other possi!ilities try to make their mark... 4ut then how do
we provide an account that makes a case for the "good# !eing ofered
!y ontologically(informed anthropology,
It seems to me that the circularity of the pro!lem has to do with an
impossi!le demand% that ontologically(informed anthropology should
enact an account devoid of any imperative of what it should !e. It seems
to me that no matter how much we may try to elude it the implicit
imperatives that come along with our accounts unavoida!ly interrupt
redirect clash and otherwise intermingle with other accounts and their
imperatives. 1nthropology is ontologically political inasmuch as its
operation presupposes this many(fold conse3uential intermingling. Then
in my view the challenge lies not so much in devising ways to
inde0nitely sustain the possi!le !ut contri!uting to actuali*e some
possi!ilities and not others. 5ne of these possi!ilities (!ut not the only
one) might precisely !e a "worlding# (so to speak) where the possi!le is
inde0nitely sustained.
Contri!uting to actuali*e some possi!ilities and not others entails
refusing a wholesale em!race of either diference or sameness. 6ranted
in a context where doing sameness is the dominant modality doing
diference largely !ecomes an imperative. $owever I cannot shed from
my mind what an 7shiro teacher and mentor once told me% not all stories
(or accounts) are to !e told or enacted )ust anywhere& every situation
re3uires its own story. Telling )ust any story without attending to what
the situation re3uires is sheer recklessness. Thus 0guring out where
when and how to do diference and sameness as the circumstances
re3uire is to me the key challenge of doing political ontology.