“The trap is the first and the ultimate anthropology of itself.”
Alberto Corsin Jimenez
Alberto Corsin Jimenez + Rane Willerslev are heading up a panel on ‘Anthropological Traps’ at the EASA conference in Milan this July. I’ll be joining the tangle to talk about a Mongolian lasso and non-Euclidean drawing tools, and to preview a new collaboration with Rebecca Empson, a sort of cross-species stereoscope that holds the split perspective of a pole-lasso at work as it negotiates between the worlds of herder and horse.
“The ethnographic record is replete with accounts of trapping as a technology of hunting. Yet they failed to engage the attention of scholars as objects of theory in their own right. This panel aims to correct this omission by centering attention on ‘traps’ as spaces of ethnographic and theoretical productivity. We believe that traps offer new ground with which to rethink the comparative project of anthropology. On the one hand, traps work as interfaces between human and nonhuman forms and agencies. They blur classical distinctions between prey and predator, subject and object, nature and culture, epistemology and ontology. Secondly, traps work as ecological infrastructures. They artefactualize the density of human and nonhuman entanglements. Third, traps are space-time technologies in their own right. They are framing devices where acceleration, anticipation or waiting take hold over bodies and environments in various capacities.
Continue reading “Anthropological Traps”
sketch for “recipe for trapping and eating oneself alone (with others)”, HS 2013
Sparagmos (Ancient Greek: σπαραγμός, from σπαράσσω sparasso, “tear, rend, pull to pieces”) is an act of rending, tearing apart, or mangling, usually in a Dionysian context.
In Dionysian rite as represented in myth and literature, a living animal, or sometimes even a human being, is sacrificed by being dismembered. Sparagmos was frequently followed by omophagia (the eating of the raw flesh of the one dismembered). It is associated with the Maenads or Bacchantes, followers of Dionysus, and the Dionysian Mysteries.
OBJECTS OBJECTS EVERYWHERE:
“one could say that a system can see only what it can see. It cannot see what it cannot. Moreover, it cannot see that it cannot see this. For the system this is something concealed ‘behind’ the horizon that, for it, has no ‘behind.’…
…Reality is what one does not perceive when one perceives it.” – Luhmann, Ecological Communication
Each substance of a grief hath twenty shadows,
Which shows like grief itself, but is not so;
For sorrow’s eye, glazed with blinding tears,
Divides one thing entire to many objects;
Like perspectives, which rightly gazed upon
Show nothing but confusion, eyed awry
Distinguish form: so your sweet majesty,
Looking awry upon your lord’s departure,
Find shapes of grief, more than himself, to wail;
Which, look’d on as it is, is nought but shadows
Of what it is not.
Richard II, Shakespeare
…the problem with subjectless objects is not that they are too objective, neglecting the role of subject, but that what they describe as subjectless world of objects is too subjective, already within an unproblematized transcendental horizon. We do not reach the In-itself by way of tearing away subjective appearances and trying to isolate “objective reality” as it is “out there,” independently of the subject; the In-itself inscribes itself precisely into the subjective excess, gap, inconsistency that opens up a hole in reality.”
Of a symbol (usually in mythology or religion): signifying only itself, as opposed to representing or standing for something else; existing to draw attention to its own existence; (also) of or relating to this kind of symbolism.
- Chiefly associated with Coleridge and the German philosopher Friedrich Schelling (1775–1854).
sketch for UURGA(irregular loop), HS 2014