Thinking beyond the State

Thinking beyond the State

Marc Abélès

Translated by Phillip Rousseau and Marie-Claude Haince

Cornell University Press

Ithaca and London

Contents

Foreword

Introduction

1 Society against the State: Clastres, Deleuze, Guattari

2 The Stalemate of Sovereignty

3 Biopolitics and the Great Return of Anthropos

4 Infrapolitics and the Ambivalence of Compassion

5 Scenes from Global Politics

6 The Anthropology of Globalization

Notes

References

Index

Foreword

GEORGE E. MARCUS

From 2008 through 2010, Marc Abélès organized and led a project conducted by an international group of ethnographic researchers, of which I was privileged to be a member, inside the headquarters of the World Trade Organization in Geneva. This kind of research, in the style of resident participant curiosity, characteristic of anthropological fieldwork in the world’s non-modern small-scale societies, was undertaken at the invitation of the then director general of the WTO, Pascal Lamy, and was quite unlike previous microsociologies of WTO processes produced by consultants and organizational experts. Having begun his career when structuralism and Marxism defined the paradigms of anthropological scholarship in France, Abélès did his initial research among the traditional cultures of peoples in Ethiopia but soon thereafter followed a rather peculiar, but bold career path for a French anthropologist. He studied, as an ethnographer, the microprocesses of the French State itself (producing renowned ethnographic volumes on a regional election in Burgundy and on the French National Assembly). Logically, in recent years, he has turned toward studies of the European Union, and his work has gained the admiration of officials (e.g., Lamy), leading to his entrée and access as an anthropologist at the WTO. Abélès began within the archetype of the Leviathan—France, the most statist historic European expression of it—and followed the track of its efforts to realize its most exalted dreams and ambitions.

Throughout his distinguished career, Abélès has consistently applied the anthropologist’s jeweler’s eye to the nature of micropower and politics in the State system, especially as it was shaped in Europe and internationally by Western powers following World War II. His scholarship has tracked, at a molecular level, the various remarkable changes in this behemoth, in particular from the end of the Cold War to the present challenges to the effectiveness of States as the basis of international order. Always thinking beyond the State even while studying within it, or its extensions, as sites of fieldwork research, Abélès has done so in the way that anthropology has constitutionally encouraged its analysts to make its subjects strange to encourage unconventional ways of seeing rationalized norms and ambitions. Abélès has always made comparative observations in his writings, drawing from classic anthropological studies in traditional societies, including in the present essay, from his own initial fieldwork in Ethiopia decades ago.

In presenting his cogent critical insights into contemporary institutions of the post–World War II State system, Abélès has thus always thought beyond the State. In this essay, however, following extended research at the WTO, at a time in which it was trying to recapture its own relevance in a world that has in many of its processes escaped the regulation or even framework of State authority (e.g., during the world financial crisis, which coincided with the years of our research at the WTO), he tries to rethink or reset a theory of practice for anthropological research at the present juncture and into the very near future. Before taking up the WTO project, which was itself a bold experiment in sustained collaborative method and coordination among a large team of independent researchers, ten in number, Abélès had produced an important volume on the phenomenon of globalization (2008). The present short essay is more than an addendum to that substantial work. While it can, and should be, read in one sitting, it really addresses both the theoretical objects and the methods of contemporary anthropological research, and even more importantly, its posture and identity in the scenes of research that are defined formally by the State and it organizations.

His key argument is that anthropologists can no longer be mere participant observers in the environments that are still shaped by State systems. Power is not something that can be studied without anthropologists having very overt methodological strategies for their participation. They need a clearer understanding of their own politics of research, that their presence should be thought of as intervention, and that fieldwork inevitably brings about displacements in microsettings, which generate the most important sources of insights and arguments that anthropologists can produce in their ethnographic writings. Anthropologists are neither journalists nor activists, but pursuers of certain insights about the active play of power that need proof of life so to speak—in other words, kinds of data that involve complicit, collaborative relations with those who would classically have been considered only informants or assistants to fieldwork inquiry. Thinking beyond the State while working within its processes suggests clues and strategies for making research an intervention or displacement that can be reported on as the data of ethnography.

This short essay comes at a point of maturity in Abélès’s career but certainly not at the end—he is currently starting up a fascinating project on the trade in luxury goods between China and the West, among other personal projects—during the period of the WTO project, for example, he produced an extraordinary personal account of Chinese artist districts, literally as entrepreneurial start-ups (2011). Yet, after extremely challenging fieldwork at a higher organizational level of the aging, and far less hopeful, post–World War II international State system, he provides in this book-length essay the means to reassess and adapt the mode of thinking about what anthropological method is and does in the mise-en-scène of States, forums, and bureaucracies through which he has distinguished himself, not as an expert, but as an anthropologist and applied ethnographic philosopher.

This essay is thus not so much a personal memoir as a primer for students who will follow and extend his path, consistently interested in the Western expressions of power and politics, while the institutional shells in which they occur rapidly transform. How one is to think about such research in the future is the discussion that Abélès initiates in this essay.

Anthropologists who do not read French will be particularly grateful for this translation of Abélès’s essay, as it provides incisive, integrated interpretations of key poststructuralist thinkers, each of whom has had an important and broad influence on contemporary transnational anthropological research, but who, to my knowledge, have not until now been brought together in synthesis toward a distinctive way of practicing research in which Abélès has come to share. Beginning, as one might expect, with Pierre Clastres’s highly original, classic work in the theory and philosophy of French political anthropology, Society against the State, Abélès then delves into the importance of anthropological concepts in the work of Deleuze and Guattari, whose work has had a profound impact on recent Anglo-American anthropological theory. He goes on to comment incisively on the work of such key thinkers as Foucault (for whom anthropology itself has not been a major influence) and Rancière, and on the vibrant, agile Marxism in the writings of Balibar and of Hardt and Negri on present conditions, where indeed events, social movements, and the life of peoples exceed the frameworks and concerns of States. Thinking beyond the State has very much become a catchphrase for the anthropological concerns of these influential key theorists, whose writings focus on society through, around, and besides the State.

While Abélès amply demonstrates the renewed relevance of anthropology after structuralism and Marxism, he shows equally that its conceptual innovations and understandings depend on a lessening of the distance of how questions are asked and posed in the intimacies of fieldwork. It is the emergence of interventionalist anthropological inquiry at the level of fieldwork, without it necessarily being a public, activist, or social movement affiliated practice that Abélès encourages in his own long-term originality in resolving conceptually the philosophical and political problems posed by the very nature of intervention that anthropological research requires. Here, he is inspired perhaps by Clastres’s originary example, of thinking not against, but beyond the State. What is called for is a kind of politics of intervention, where the stakes are the articulation of new concepts in the history of theory and ideas that have defined, and continue to define, anthropology. The politics of fieldwork in and through the former, dominant domains of State authority becomes the source and substance of contemporary anthropology’s arguments. The professional readership is but one of a number of concentric circles emanating from sojourns of fieldwork that leave their displacements as both the signature traces and most acute critical expressions of anthropological thinking and writing for multiple audiences, including their subject.

Introduction

All revolutions thus only perfected the state machinery instead of throwing off this deadening incubus.

Marx 1966, 164

It is no surprise that one of the sharpest fault lines of our times rests on globalization and its consequences. The excesses of capitalism, rampant financialization, and the ensuing crisis sparked a vast debate: on one side, those who consider themselves realists and advocate social adaptation to what they perceive as unavoidable processes; on the other, partisans of resistance to globalization and its presupposed underlying depravity. While the gap between the two sides has only widened within the last ten years, it does not reflect the classic distribution of political foes. On the contrary, it carves its way through both left and right, making it all but impossible to think contemporary politics without recognizing the wide redistribution at stake. Some may accuse