This post starts a series where I will be exploring if the Ontological Turn, originating from anthropology, can aid our understanding of the Late Antique past. I will do this by examining some of Isidore of Seville’s texts to see if we can recover his ‘world’ or ontology. However, before this, I will introduce the Ontological Turn in this post and discuss its implications for the historical discipline.

The anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros De Castro describes one of the distinct features of some Amerindian societies. He states that within them they see animals as humans, in terms of their souls. Whereas, their body or ‘skin’ is mere clothing. This is different to the European point of view, where humans are elevated above animals due to their ‘superior’ souls and instead the body is seen as the unifying factor between species (e.g. through DNA). This suggests that Amerindian societies often had and have a distinct way of viewing the world that is radically different to Eurocentric understandings. This raises the question about how are to study Amerindian societies when they seem so at odds with post-Enlightment European views, raising questions regarding the tools and categories used in anthropological studies and other disciplines. The Ontological Turn engages with this problem and proposes a new way to study radical difference.

It does this by suggesting we should take the worlds of other societies seriously. Reality, according to the Ontological Turn, is not composed of a single world, instead it is composed of multiple worlds. It therefore opposes the idea of culture being imposed on a single reality and denies the existence of a common human nature. Another key aspect of the Ontological Turn is its focus on nonhuman actors. It goes beyond Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and Object-oriented Ontology (OOO), by focusing on animals, spirits and other non-human actors, alongside objects. To use an example that might this series’ medieval focus, if one world says God or dead saints have a role in society and agency, then one has to take that claim seriously. They really exist and exert an influence on a reality. This may seem at odds with the views of modernity, but to fully understand different worlds we need an openess to non-Eurocentric and pre-Englightment realities.

One advantage of the Ontological Turn is therefore its acceptance of alterity. However, another aspect that needs consideration is that it offers a return to empirical and positvist inclinations. It takes statements at face value, rather than analysing cultural discourses that overlay the ‘real’ world . In it one describes the world as they find it, rather than seeking to apply one’s assumptions to it. However, there are also potential criticisms of the Ontological Turn. One raised by Vigh and Sausdal regards translation. if one denies the existence of a united human nature then how does one establish a ‘common ground’ to understand and interpret other worlds? Methodologically speaking, you might reach a dead end. A futher criticism raised by Vigh and Sausdal is that radical alterity and exotification are some of the primary ways anthropology has been misused outside the academy. Painting other worlds as inherently different might easily result in abuse in a political context.

While the Ontological Turn emerged from from anthropology, talk of other worlds can also be found in other disciplines. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions claims that scientists working in other paradigms might be said to live in different worlds. Whereas, Swenson has engaged with the Ontological Turn in her work on Peruvian archaeology, despite the fact that she refutes it. In the historical discipline, Greg Anderson has been the most vocal proponent of the Ontological Turn, in particular by analysing ancient Athens. He claims there are three key aspects of the Athenian ‘world’ that separate it from ours. Firstly, that the Gods were living and that they were ‘real independent subjects and agents in the world of time and space’. Secondly, that Attica (Athens’ land) was a living organism, it was not just a generic territorial tract. Finally, that individuals in Athens formed part of a corporate body constitued of households, they saw themsleves as united together. Anderson argues, that only the Ontological Turn can prevent us from colonising the past and imposing the trappings of modernity on it. We must avoid applying our own historical categories and see the past as it was. This ends a summary of the Ontological Turn.

This post has addressed the question; what is the Ontological Turn? In the next post in this series, I will examine Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies in order to retrieve his ‘world’. The Etymologies are a good source when applying the Ontological Turn to the Late Antique past due to their encylopedic nature. During the next post, I will also consider the critical issues that might arise when trying to understand a past world through historical sources. Nevertheless, after this post, it should now be clear what the Ontological Turn is.

Bibliography:

Anderson, Greg. ‘Retrieving the Lost Worlds of the Past: The Case for an Ontological Turn.’ The American Historical Review 120, 3 (2015), 787-810.

Castro, Eduardo Viveiros de. ‘Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism.’ The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4, 3 (1998), 469-488.

Pickering, Andrew.’The Ontological Turn: Taking Different Worlds Seriosuly.’ Social Analysis 61, 2 (2017), 134-150.

Sausdal, David and Henrik Vigh. ‘From Essence Back to Existence: Anthropology Beyond the Ontological Turn.’ Anthropological Theory 14, 1 (2014), 49-73.

Swenson, Edward. ‘The Materialities of Place Making in the Ancient Andes: a Critical Appraisal of the Ontological Turn in Archaeological Interpretation.’ Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22 (2015), 677-712.