Pierre Clastres as comparative political theorist: The democratic potential of the new political anthropology
| Author | Christopher Holman |
| DOI | 10.1177/1474885117729772 |
| Published date | 01 January 2021 |
| Date | 01 January 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
EJPT
Article
Pierre Clastres as
comparative political
theorist: The democratic
potential of the new
political anthropology
Christopher Holman
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Abstract
This article examines the political anthropological work of Pierre Clastres in light of the
emergence of the subfield of comparative political theory. In particular, it argues that
Clastres’ reconstruction of the political philosophy of various Amazonian societies
offers an alternative model for the engagement with texts and traditions external to
the history of so-called Western societies. Rejecting all impulses toward totalization –
as represented, for example, in the assertion of a dialogical potential for establishing
modes of intercultural exchange aimed at achieving mutual understanding – Clastres
calls attention to the radical social-historical alterity of forms of society. Appreciation of
this alterity not only enlarges the scope of comparative political thought to engage
inherited traditions that resist assimilation into Western conversations, but also reveals
an indeterminate democratic potential grounded in political creativity.
Keywords
Alterity, comparative political theory, democracy, indigenous political theory, Pierre
Clastres
Introduction: Clastres and the project of comparative
political theory
Within the history of 20th century French ideas, the philosopher-turned-anthro-
pologist Pierre Clastres holds a significant place.
1
In particular, Clastres’
ethnological work detailing the social structure of indigenous Amazonian societies
and the political mechanisms through which this structure is instituted – in
European Journal of Political Theory
2021, Vol. 20(1) 67–94
!The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1474885117729772
journals.sagepub.com/home/ept
Corresponding author:
Christopher Holman, Assistant Professor, Public Policy and Global Affairs Programme, School of Humanities
and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, HSS-06-04 14, Nanyang Drive, 637332, Singapore.
Email: cholman@ntu.edu.sg
particular their rejection of coercive power in the name of a principle of equality –
influenced a generation of some of the most talented democratic political theorists
in France, such as Claude Lefort, Miguel Abensour, and the young Marcel
Gauchet (see Breckman, 2013: 168–169; Holman et al., 2015: 12–13; Moyn,
2004, 2005, 2012; Potte-Bonneville, 2011). Despite his contribution to this intellec-
tual lineage, however, Clastres’ work remains largely unknown within the
Anglophone world, or at least within the world of Anglophone political theory.
2
My suggestion in this article is that such a situation deserves to be rectified, that
political theorists in particular have something to gain through the encounter with
the political anthropology of Clastres. Although political anthropologists have
attempted to articulate how the application of ethnographic and ethnological
methods can greatly enhance our understanding of the being of politics, political
theorists have been generally less inclined to endorse such interdisciplinarity.
3
That said, the possibility for establishing a fruitful relationship between political
theory and anthropology has not gone completely unnoticed. It has been affirmed,
in particular, by several practitioners of the subfield of comparative political
thought.
4
Looking to build on such intuitions, in this article I suggest that the
political anthropology of Clastres specifically, which has thus far not been engaged
with by comparative political theorists, has the potential to greatly enrich
comparative political thought through uniquely intervening in conversations regard-
ing, for example, the negotiation of the poles of universality and partic ularity, identity
and difference, and self and other. Ultimately I will argue that this intervention reveals
a democratic political potential intrinsic to comparative political thought, the type of
social diversity revealed by Clastres being a manifestation of the political creativity
upon which all democratic projects depend.
The field of comparative political theory is an extremely broad and diverse one,
there certainly being no programmatic crystallization of agreement regarding its
objects, methods, and ends.
5
One of the fundamental debates animating the field,
however, is particularly relevant to my discussion. It may be approached initially
through a consideration of a claim made by Fred Dallmayr (1997: 422) in the
introduction to a special edition of The Review of Politics that largely inaugurated
the project as it exists in its current form. Dallmayr maintained, speaking to
the geographical and cultural scope of the enterprise, that the field must extend
‘‘from Europe and the Americas to Africa, Asia and Australasia.’’ Despite this
declaration, he notes (1997: 423) that the issue would nevertheless focus only on
‘‘the segment comprising the Islamic world, the Indian subcontinent, and East
Asia.’’
6
The coalescence of comparative political theory around these three primary
poles only intensified after this point, there developing something of a static regime
of classification that neatly divided non-Western thought into a limited set of
categories that excluded more than it included. Indeed, it is now not uncommon
for textbooks to compartmentalize non-Western political theory into the sole
categories of East Asian, South Asian, and Islamic (Dallmayr, 2010; Kapust and
Kinsella, 2017b; Klosko, 2013: 771–820; Parel and Keith, 2003). Hence, for
example, Anthony Parel (1993: 12) on his own programmatic text’s exclusive
emphasis on the Western, Chinese, Islamic, and Indian traditions: ‘‘We focus on
68 European Journal of Political Theory 20(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial