Neither in nor Dividual: Beyond Marilyn Strathern’s Relational Anthropology

Abstract

The anthropology of personhood has tried to overcome the supposedly bounded Western individual by making “relations” constitutive of persons. This article argues that the resulting individual/dividual opposition inverts the architecture of early modern transactive dualism without escaping it. Relations are analytical descriptions applicable to virtually anything, with no standing as an independently observable mediation of living, and when they are made foundational they offer no determinate null case: no observation could establish that a relational account fails to apply. Marilyn Strathern's historicisation of relation in Relations: An Anthropological Account does not overcome this limitation, because her account retains relational exposition and the making-visible of relations as privileged operations of anthropological knowledge. Her reading of Wright of Derby's An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump as an image of knowledge being made visible shows the cost: the painting depicts an obsolete experiment restaged as spectacle, in which a watch times a death that teaches nothing new. Drawing on Living Value Theory (LVT) and on ethnography of organised noninteraction among people living with trichotillomania, the article shows that much consequential living consists in preventing recursive encounters and in maintaining coordinations that need not become visible or articulated. Making something visible is itself a shift in recursivity, whose value must be established through the vital stakes it affects. Anthropology should therefore investigate ongoing, multimediated living coordination without presupposing either individual persons or their relations as foundational entities.

I. The Bird in the Air Pump

In Joseph Wright of Derby's An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, painted in 1768, a travelling natural philosopher demonstrates the vacuum to a household gathered around a table at night. A white cockatoo lies at the bottom of a glass receiver from which the air has been withdrawn. The philosopher's hand rests on the stopcock, and he looks out of the picture as though asking the viewer whether the air should be let back in. Around the table the company responds unevenly. Two girls are distressed, the younger looking up at the bird, the elder covering her eyes while a man beside her tries to console her. A seated man at the front of the table holds a pocket watch, timing the experiment. An older man sits with his chin on his hand, absorbed in thought. A young couple attend more to each other than to the bird. At the window a boy handles the empty cage, which will be lowered if the bird is revived and has no further use if it is not. Such demonstrations had by Wright's time become a form of instructive entertainment in drawing rooms.

The painting is on the cover of Marilyn Strathern's Relations: An Anthropological Account (2020), and in the short coda on visibility that precedes the book's conclusion she reflects on what it allows its viewers to see (Strathern 2020: 165–166). There is a scientific demonstration; there is knowledge being made before an audience; there is a social scene, with its differentiated emotional responses; there is the relation between the bird and the air of which it is being deprived, a relation Locke had already noticed when he considered what the removal of air does to living creatures. Strathern does not forget that the bird is alive, and she does not endorse the experiment. She reads the painting, however, as an image of knowledge being made by holding bird, air, apparatus, demonstrator and audience in view together, so that what the scene teaches is how relations become visible. That reading, like the long tradition of interpretation that treats the painting as a drama of Enlightenment inquiry poised between reason and feeling, takes the demonstration at its own word.

The pocket watch suggests a different painting. By 1768 nobody in such a room needed to be shown that a bird deprived of air will die; Boyle's air-pump experiments had established as much more than a century earlier, and the demonstration had long since become a set piece of travelling lecturers. What the experiment can still produce is a measurement of how long the dying takes, and the watch is the instrument that produces it. On this reading the watch is the central epistemic device in the painting, and what is being measured is time. The experiment discovers nothing and is an exercise in recursive overperformance, a procedure that once had an epistemic purpose restaged as spectacle after that purpose has been exhausted, in a domestic setting without controls or method, before children who are present less to be taught than to supply the drama.

The demonstrator presents himself as a figure of authority. He holds the stopcock and looks out at the viewer as though the decision to restore the air or withhold it were still his to make. Everything in the scene suggests that the moment for that decision has passed: the bird lies at the bottom of the receiver, the watch has run on, and the question he poses with his gaze is already moot. He continues to perform control over an outcome that is no longer in his hands. The only figures who register what has happened are the two girls. One looks at the bird in quiet horror; the other covers her eyes. They do not join the spectacle, and their response is no lapse of reason. They alone grasp the irreversibility of what has occurred and the pointlessness of a death timed for performance, and the elder girl's refusal to look is the only act of epistemic integrity in the room.

Strathern's reading therefore gets the painting substantially wrong, and the error is instructive. By treating the scene as knowledge being made visible, she repeats the position of the spectators who believe they are witnessing a revelation. What the painting makes visible is a duration, a death converted into a number by the watch, and no new knowledge at all. A relational description that holds bird, air, apparatus, demonstrator and audience in view together cannot register the two features on which the scene turns: the irreversibility of a metabolic process that the stopcock can no longer reverse, and the difference between seeing a death and refusing to watch it. The misreading is, in a sense, part of the painting. An obsolete experiment, painted in a medium that was itself ceasing to be the privileged form of scientific representation as diagrams and instruments took over, presents itself as alive and meaningful, and two centuries of viewers, the demonstrator's intended audience among them, have obliged by seeing a scene of discovery. The demonstrator thinks he is in control, the spectators think they are witnessing a revelation, and the interpreters, Strathern included, have found the production of knowledge. The bird has meanwhile run out of air.

Three things are therefore happening in the room, and they are of different kinds. The bird is undergoing a metabolic catastrophe: breathing, ordinarily the least salient of its coordinations, has become the only one that matters to it. The demonstrator performs control over the conditions under which it might have continued to live. The audience is being made to witness and interpret what occurs, and its members register the bird's predicament unevenly: the girls at once, the man with the watch as an interval to be recorded, the couple scarcely at all. The painting stages an asymmetry between living, the power to intervene in living, and the spectacle of knowing about living. A relational reading can redescribe all three as connections, between bird and air, demonstrator and stopcock, audience and bird. Those redescriptions explain none of what decides the outcome: why the bird needs air, why its survival depended on a valve, why one man held that valve, and why spectatorship, however sympathetic, is no substitute for effective intervention.

The production of visibility is itself the intervention that kills the bird. The scene cannot be understood by asking what relations the experiment reveals, since what the audience gains, a timed display of something already known, is purchased through the disruption of the bird's metabolic continuation. The spectacle and its living cost are different things, and the painting, read with that difference in mind, raises a question that bears directly on Strathern's choice of image: why anthropology is so disposed to treat making visible as the accomplishment that matters.

LVT supplies a vocabulary for this difference. Living coordination proceeds at several levels of recursivity (Ecks 2026c). At L1 it is absorbed: breathing, balance, the reach of a hand and the turning of attention proceed without being taken up as questions. At L2 a coordination ceases to run smoothly and is felt as a disturbance, becoming questionable before it is named. At L3 the disturbance is articulated for this interaction. At L4 an articulation is stabilised into a portable form that can be carried across situations, applied by people who were never present, and deposited in texts, rules and institutions; at L5 such stabilisations are reconsidered and repositioned. The bird's suffocation unfolds at L1 and L2. The watch converts it into a portable quantity, an L4 measure of time, and Strathern's reading stabilises the scene once more into a portable lesson about the visibility of knowledge. Each step upward is a shift in recursivity, and none of them is neutral with respect to what is happening to the bird.

The anthropology of personhood has repeatedly mistaken differences between levels of recursivity for differences between cultural conceptions of persons (Ecks 2026d). The relational turn is the most instructive instance, because it was built to correct exactly such an error. It saw that the bounded individual of Western social theory was an L4 classification and refused to accept it as a description of how people live. It then offered relation in the individual's place, at the same level, as the term in which persons are to be understood, and made the disclosure of relations the characteristic achievement of anthropological description.

Four terms need to be kept apart. A transaction is the passage of something, goods, substance, services, words or obligations, from one party to another, such that the parties are placed or altered by the passage. A relation, in the broad sense Strathern gives it, is any connection, comparison, classification, division or detachment through which two or more terms are held in view together. Relationality is the analytical preference, and sometimes the ontological claim, that beings are best understood through the relations that compose or connect them. Recursive coordination is the ongoing process, prior to any naming or deciding, in which living activity is altered by its own consequences and by the responses it generates, and through which living beings continually discern which aspects of what they encounter matter and whether those aspects answer back (Ecks 2026c). The asymmetry among these terms is the article's starting point. Transactions and coordinations occur; they can be observed, they take time, and they have consequences for those involved. A relation is an analytically articulable predicate, something said of two or more terms once they have been held in view together, and nothing in the mesocosm proceeds through it. One can observe that two people exchange objects or that a parent and child respond to one another. The observed exchange or response discloses no separately observable entity called a relation, and its identification as one depends on an additional analytical operation.

Three criticisms follow, and each can be argued independently. The first is ontological vacuity: if anything can count as a relation, relationality specifies no determinate process occurring in the mesocosm, and relations cannot be a sixth mediation through which beings live. The second is the missing null case: if connection and disconnection, recognition and nonrecognition, interaction and noninteraction all qualify as relations, no observation could establish that the relational framework does not apply, and its universality cannot count as evidence that it explains anything. The third is the false priority of visibility: making something visible is a consequential shift in recursivity, and whether that shift is useful, harmful, necessary or irrelevant depends on the vital stakes involved. Ethnography of people who organise their lives so that certain disclosures, questions, inspections and interventions do not happen supplies the decisive test of all three.

Personhood is the exemplary site for this argument. It is at once an apparent ethnographic object and an analytical category used to construct comparisons between societies, and insofar as it operates as a repeatable category it is itself characteristically an L4 stabilisation (Ecks 2026d). The individual/dividual opposition therefore organises the identification of the object and its explanation together, so that whatever view of relations an anthropologist brings has decided what kind of thing is being studied before any particular person is encountered.

II. Different Anthropologies, Different Stabilisations of Knowledge

Anthropologists encounter activities, practices, categories, accounts, conflicts and forms of living coordination, and personhood becomes an object of inquiry through decisions about which of these are significant and which can be compared. The traditions that make those decisions are themselves stabilised organisations of knowledge. Departments, syllabi, journals, canonical texts and inherited problems are multimaterial and multisymbolic deposits, taken up and reworked by each generation of students. Their boundaries are consequential for those who work within them, and they are no divisions in the phenomenon: anthropology, psychology, law and philosophy each address personhood, but living does not arrive divided along their lines.

A familiar contrast, which must be heavily qualified, separates American cultural anthropology from British social anthropology. A broad American orientation, shaped in part by Herder, by German Romanticism and by the Boasian tradition, asks how to interpret the articulations of a meaningful world that people already inhabit. Clifford Geertz gave it its most influential form. "Culture is public because meaning is", he wrote, and "the culture of a people is an ensemble of texts" that the anthropologist reads over the shoulders of those to whom they belong (Geertz 1973a: 12; 1973b: 452). His account of Balinese and Javanese persons follows: the person becomes intelligible through names, titles and styles of address (Geertz 1974). Geertz never claimed that every experience is verbalised, and the criticism that matters concerns analytical privilege. Interpretive anthropology made publicly available symbolic meaning the primary route to what is significant in a form of life, and so assumed that the vitally consequential aspects of living are sufficiently accessible through public articulation. A broad British orientation privileges institutions, kinship, obligation and the observable organisation of social life, and the question of how people are connected readily becomes the central one. Neither national tradition owns interpretation, observation, symbolism or exchange, and the contrast is useful only insofar as it identifies epistemological preferences that can quietly become ontological presuppositions.

Melford Spiro came to personhood through the Theravāda doctrine of anattā, the absence of an enduring self, and found Burmese villagers who accepted the doctrine while accumulating merit and anticipating rebirth as though something of themselves would continue (Spiro 1970). He later asked whether the Western conception of the self is as peculiar as Geertz had claimed (Spiro 1993). His distinctions between doctrine, motivation, experience and practice require scrutiny, but he had seen that an L4 doctrine and the living of those who profess it need not coincide. A. Irving Hallowell's account of Ojibwa "other-than-human persons" shows a second route (Hallowell 1960). When he asked an old man whether all the stones around them were alive, the answer, "No! But some are," was a report on discernment: some stones had been seen to move and had been engaged accordingly. The question to put to this material concerns what was at stake in encounters with particular stones, rather than whether the Ojibwa understood stones to be persons, and Hallowell's own category is a generalising construction.

A third route gives distinctive theoretical weight to circulation, transaction, differentiation and relational composition. It is most closely associated with McKim Marriott and Marilyn Strathern, and its influence has been great enough that it is often treated as the anthropology of personhood as such. Its roots in British social anthropology are deep, and they complicate any story in which anthropology began from atomised individuals and only later discovered relations. A. R. Radcliffe-Brown distinguished the human being as an individual, "a biological organism", from the human being as a person, "a complex of social relationships" (Radcliffe-Brown 1940: 5). Social structure, in the same lecture, was "this network of actually existing relations" that direct observation was said to reveal (Radcliffe-Brown 1940: 2). In this tradition the person was relational from the start, and the organism was left to biology.

What a discipline stabilises as its means of making lives intelligible may gradually become what it assumes to be constitutive of social existence. A tradition that reads public symbols will tend to find lives organised by meanings; one that traces relations will tend to find persons made of them. In LVT's terms the slide is a conflation of levels, in which an L4 apparatus of description is read back into L1 and L2 as the structure of living. Radcliffe-Brown's formula shows how short the step can be: within a single sentence, relations that are "actually existing" because observation can trace them become what society is.

III. Transactive Dualism: A Demonstrated Claim and a Genealogical Hypothesis

Two claims must be kept apart, because they rest on different kinds of evidence. The demonstrated claim is that the individual/dividual opposition preserves the conceptual priority of persons and relations even while overturning the priority of the individual, and it can be established by close reading of the anthropological texts themselves. The genealogical hypothesis is that this architecture developed within the configuration LVT calls transactive dualism and was transmitted into anthropology through social theory. Structural similarity between early modern philosophy and late twentieth-century ethnography is no evidence of transmission, and the hypothesis must be stated with restraint.

Transactive dualism names a configuration of assumptions that took shape in early modern European thought (Ecks 2025). It privileges distinguishable agents as the units of social life; attributes to them identity, agency and accountable action; distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate dealings between them; and gives possession, obligation, promise and exchange unusual prominence among the forms social life can take. It thereby generates a problem that comes to look fundamental: how separately identifiable agents are connected and coordinated at all. In LVT's terms it is a configuration of L4 stabilisations, deposited in law, contract, philosophy and political economy, and its endurance owes much to its usefulness for particular stakes: assigning responsibility, securing property, enforcing promises. The error lies in reading the configuration back into living as a description of what people are.

John Locke is the strongest case, partly because Strathern herself provides a textual basis for examining him. In the chapter on identity added to the second edition of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke distinguishes the identity of a living organism, which consists in participation in one continued life, from the identity of a person, which he grounds in continuity of consciousness. He calls person "a forensic term, appropriating actions and their merit" (Locke 1975 [1694]: II.xxvii.26), a classification designed for holding someone to account. In the Second Treatise of Government "every man" has "a property in his own person" (Locke 1988 [1690]: II.27). Strathern examines Locke's account of relation closely (Strathern 2020: 5–6, ch. 5), and she draws attention to a striking absence: kinship plays almost no part in Locke's principal discussion of personal identity. The separation of living continuity from personal identity is the hinge of the present argument. Once the person has been defined apart from the organism, the organism's coordination becomes the business of natural philosophy, and whatever makes someone a person must be found elsewhere, in consciousness, in accountability, or, later, in relations.

David Hume carried the separation a step further. Finding no simple, continuing self among his perceptions, he concluded that the mind is "nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions" (Hume 2000 [1739]: 1.4.6.4), held together by relations of resemblance, contiguity and causation. Hume's bundle shows that the individual can be taken apart without leaving the architecture of units and relations: the unit becomes smaller, and the relations do the work the self once did. Adam Smith should not be pressed into the genealogy too quickly, since sympathy in The Theory of Moral Sentiments is an imaginative change of places in which nothing is transferred (Smith 1976a [1759]). What he adds is narrower: a spectator or trader already distinct from those he imagines or deals with, for whom coordination with others is a problem to be solved, by sympathy in one book and by the "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange" in the other (Smith 1976b [1776]: I.ii.1).

The links to anthropology are better documented, and they run through Radcliffe-Brown and Marcel Mauss. Radcliffe-Brown, drawing on Durkheim, made the person a complex of relationships and set the organism aside, repeating Locke's separation of living continuity from personhood in a sociological key. Mauss supplied the other half. His essay on the gift described exchanges in which persons and things are mingled and in which obligation binds parties through the circulation of objects (Mauss 1990 [1925]); his lecture on the category of the person traced the person from the role to the legal persona to the self (Mauss 1985 [1938]). The Gender of the Gift announces this inheritance in its title. Through these routes later anthropology received both terms of its problem: a person defined by relations instead of by living continuity, and transaction as the medium in which persons and relations become visible. On this narrower genealogy, the dividual elaborated an alternative already present within anthropology, and it inherited with that alternative the separation of the person from the living organism that made relations necessary to explain what a person is.

IV. The Dividual as the Inversion of the Individual

McKim Marriott's "Hindu Transactions: Diversity without Dualism" (1976) states its ambition in its title. South Asian persons, he argued, are generally understood as "dividual", divisible beings who continually absorb heterogeneous material influences and give out particles of their own coded substances, through food, touch, sexual relations, service, gifts and residence (Marriott 1976). His theory of substance-codes was designed to challenge the Western divisions between material and moral, actor and action, substance and code. If the architecture of transactive dualism survives here, it survives in a theory built expressly to escape it.

Three propositions can be distinguished in Marriott's account, and they belong to different levels. People exchange substances, things and capacities; these exchanges can change bodies, capacities and social positions; and transactions are the fundamental means through which persons must be understood. The first two are claims about living coordination, and South Asian ethnography of food, purity and medicine amply supports them. The third is an L4 theoretical stabilisation that does not follow from the first two. That people attend closely to who cooked a meal, and that eating it can change the eater, establishes that transactions matter. It does not establish that the eater is constituted by transactions, as opposed to living through a coordination of embodiment, being-with, dwelling, material provision and symbolic classification in which transactions are one consequential element among several. Imagine, purely as a device for posing questions, an ethnographer in a Kolkata household watching a mother cook rice and fish for a child returning from school. A transactional reading asks what passes from cook to eater. A reading that begins from vital stakes asks whether the child is hungry, whether the fish was fresh, whether the meal will sit well in a stomach unsettled by the heat, and who will eat next. Much of this proceeds at L1 and may never be articulated, although Bengali households have long traditions of reasoning about food both as substance and as digestion. Which of these matters is for the household to show.

In the individualist formulation, identifiable persons enter transactions. In the dividualist formulation, transactions constitute or differentiate identifiable persons. LVT describes a recurrent pattern in post-dualist theory that can be tested here. A first-order repair accepts a split between two terms and tries to reconnect them; a second-order repair denies that the two terms were ever independently constituted, while continuing to organise the analysis around exactly those terms (Ecks 2026b). In the dividual the inherited terms continue to determine the argument in four ways. The person remains the explanandum, and the answer is still given in terms of what persons are made of. Transaction or relation remains the explanans, now as internal composition instead of external connection. The boundary of the person remains the organising problem: where one person ends and another begins, how parts detach and circulate. And the individual remains the reference point, since the dividual's theoretical interest is measured by its distance from the bounded Western self.

The last of these is decisive. The dividual is no independently established alternative ontology; it is an inversion that remains intelligible only through the individual it negates. The word makes the point almost diagrammatically, since dividual is legible only as the individual with its negating prefix removed, much as natureculture is legible only to a reader who recognises the two words that used to be separate. In The Gender of the Gift the construction is explicit. "Far from being regarded as unique entities," Strathern writes, "Melanesian persons are as dividually as they are individually conceived. They contain a generalized sociality within. Indeed, persons are frequently constructed as the plural and composite site of the relationships that produced them" (Strathern 1988: 13). The sentence opens by negating the unique entity, and whatever the empirical richness of the ethnography, the book's central analytical contrast acquires its force from that inherited figure. Strathern was fully aware of individualism's historical specificity, and she presented the Melanesian–Western contrast as a device for exposing the analyst's own equipment. Awareness of the historical construction of a concept, however, does not prevent that concept from organising subsequent knowledge production. The stereotypical Western individual continued to govern the comparison because the comparison was built to answer it.

LVT's counterfactual test makes the dependence concrete: would a phenomenon still look theoretically remarkable if the original split had never been made (Ecks 2026b)? A child grown through its mother's cooking, a body changed by what it eats, a name carried from a grandparent, are surprising only to a theory that expected persons to be sealed. The opposition is also an L4 binary, and there are no binaries in the mesocosm (Ecks 2026c). Neither pole describes a kind of existence the mesocosm contains, and choosing the other pole, or proposing a third term between them, leaves the analysis at the same level. The appropriate question concerns what the opposition has enabled and what it has obstructed. It enabled anthropology to bring the consequences of feeding, exchange and bodily substance into focus. It obstructed whatever cannot readily appear as composition or exchange between persons. Absorbed embodiment, material concealment, the selective closure of what others may ask, care that is never articulated, and the vital consequences of events that are made not to happen all become, within the opposition, subsidiary descriptions of relationships, when they could have been explanatory objects in their own right.

The dividual also shows how an analytical construction becomes a portable comparative category. Marriott's formulation, published, cited, taught and summarised, became a characterisation of a region: South Asian persons are dividual. Monographs and articles are deposits in LVT's sense, nonrecursive in themselves, and the recursion they make possible lies in their uptake (Ecks 2026c). Three things therefore have to be distinguished as separate empirical matters: what was consequential in participants' living before the anthropologist arrived; what became consequential through the ethnographic encounter; and what became consequential through analysis, publication and teaching. Comparisons that set an L4 Western doctrine against observed or elicited non-Western coordination compound the difficulty (Ecks 2026d).

V. Strathern's Relations and the Limits of Relational Self-Correction

Relations: An Anthropological Account investigates the concept of relation as an instrument of anthropological description. Its introduction, "The Compulsion of Relations", asks why relations hold such a privileged position in anthropological exposition, and the book traces a genealogy of the concept (Strathern 2020: 4–7, ch. 5): Locke's position that a relation requires things considered as distinct, the criticism associated with Leibniz, and the later distinction between external relations, which connect independently identifiable entities, and internal relations, which constitute the entities themselves. That last distinction maps the individual/dividual problem exactly, since the individual enters external relations and the dividual is constituted by internal ones. Strathern also engages Karen Barad's agential realism, in which "relata do not preexist relations" (Barad 2007: 140), in her introduction and again in her conclusion (Strathern 2020: 17–18). Near the end of the book she recognises that attributing general value to relatedness is historically situated and that particular relational formulations can obscure other relations; the critical task, on her account, is to bring obscured relations back into view, and relational vocabulary retains critical value for making ecological and other neglected interdependencies visible (Strathern 2020: 186–190).

Her strongest defence is that she offers no universal ontology in which relations are the ultimate constituents of reality. She studies an anthropological concept and the work it performs, and to criticise her for failing to abandon a relational ontology would confuse her object of study with her commitments. The defence is accurate as a description of her intentions, and it leaves the decisive question untouched. An analytical practice has consequences independent of the ontology its practitioner professes, and relation, in Relations, remains the term in which both the problem and its remedy are stated. When one relational description obscures another, the remedy is a more discriminating relational description. The remedy cannot, by its construction, detect inadequacies arising from the decision to make the specification of relations the first task of description, and it keeps the correction at the level where it began: an obscured relation brought back into view is a further articulation, while coordination that was never articulated remains where it was.

Three reasons for retaining relation can be reconstructed from the shape of Strathern's argument, and none of them survives scrutiny as a reason for foundational status. The first is that relation is the medium of anthropological knowledge, since ethnography relates observer to observed and comparison relates case to case. This identifies a stake that belongs to anthropology. Relation matters within the discipline's own living coordination, its methods, careers, journals and debates, and that establishes nothing about whether it is the most useful point of departure for understanding what was consequential to those described. The second is relation's flexibility: any alternative can be absorbed as a further relation, so that discernment becomes a relation of attention, a stake a relation of dependence, nonresponse a relation of withholding. That capacity is the source of the difficulty, because a concept that absorbs every alternative registers that each is present while supplying none of the differences among them, and it cannot be challenged from within, since every challenge reappears as a new item in the relational inventory. The third is critical: a vocabulary that makes interdependence visible has political value at a time of ecological catastrophe. The dependencies it reveals, however, are exactly what an account of vital stakes, their allocation and their muting is designed to bring into view, and that account does not need relation to do so.

The vital-stakes question should also be distinguished from reflexivity. Relations is reflexive about its instrument to an exceptional degree: it historicises relation, examines how relations are constructed, and acknowledges their limitations. Reflexivity clarifies the analyst's assumptions and equipment. It cannot establish whether the distinctions that equipment draws mattered to those being studied, which requires inquiry into their living coordination (Ecks 2026d), and it can coexist indefinitely with an analytical vocabulary that never faces the possibility of empirical nonapplication. The divergence from LVT can therefore be stated without qualification. Strathern responds to an inadequate relational analysis by seeking a more discriminating one. LVT holds that relations are no independently established constituent of living, and that their unlimited descriptive availability is precisely what disqualifies them from foundational explanatory status.

VI. The Relation That Cannot Be Absent

What would count, within a relational anthropology, as an absence of relation? If an exchange occurs, there is a relation of exchange; if exchange is withheld, there is a relation of withholding. If someone is recognised, there is a relation of recognition; if ignored, a relation of nonrecognition. An encounter establishes a relation, and avoidance can be redescribed as a relation of avoidance. This vocabulary has no apparent null case. It can incorporate any finding because it has not specified what would disconfirm its application. Its apparent universality therefore supplies no evidence of ontological fundamentality, and what has become universal is an option of description, not a process demonstrated to constitute living.

The criticism needs careful formulation, because breadth of application is no fault in itself. A theory can apply widely without being empty, as long as it specifies conditions under which it would not apply, and the cases to which it applies then count in its favour. A theory that supplies no criteria for its own nonapplication is in a different position: its generality cannot count as evidence that it explains anything, since no outcome could have counted against it. Put the question to the claim that persons are constituted through relations. What would count as an aspect of a particular person's living that is not so constituted? If every candidate, a bodily habit, a solitary skill, a secret, an absence, can be redescribed as a relation of some kind, the claim has not been tested against a nonrelational alternative. It has been protected from one.

The challenge can be put directly to Strathern. If relations cannot be absent, what precisely does it mean to discover one? Her accounts of how relations are made visible, how they are obscured, and how a more discriminating description can recover them presuppose that some relations are present and unseen. In a vocabulary without a null case, the difference between a relation discovered and a relation constructed by the description cannot be settled by observation, and the anthropology of visibility becomes an anthropology of what the analyst has chosen to articulate.

A newborn crying in the night shows how relational description depends on distinctions supplied from elsewhere. The infant's relation to its mother is the same whether the cry is discerned as hunger, as discomfort, or as nothing requiring attention, while the next hour of both their lives differs completely according to which discernment occurs. A relational account can respond that the relation has changed after all, from one of attending to one of neglect. It can say so only after the difference has been identified by attending to discernment, embodiment and what is at stake for each. Relation then registers a difference it did not detect, and it adds nothing to the explanation of why one discernment occurred instead of another. Relational description in this sense is parasitic: it can follow any distinction, and it originates none.

VII. Living Is Not Mediated by Relations

LVT's generative principle is that life is recursive mediation in a mesocosm, the lived field of available beings, processes, materials and conditions within which coordination occurs, and it begins from that ongoing process "rather than from thought, meaning, or transaction" (Ecks 2026c: 1). Living is recursively co-mediated through multisensorial embodiment, multispecies being-with, multiversal dwelling, multimateriality and multisymbolization, and relations have no place among these. Relations may be retrospectively identified, articulated or stabilised in describing this coordination, and such descriptions may themselves become consequential through multisymbolization, when they are written into a genealogy, a law of inheritance or an anthropological monograph. Nothing in the occurrence of living, however, requires the prior existence, formation or discovery of a relation. To describe an embodied coordination relationally is to say something about it, and saying it does not identify the process through which it occurs.

The five mediations, by contrast, direct investigation toward differentiated processes and their consequences. Multisensorial embodiment directs attention to sensation, movement, fatigue, hunger and bodily response. Multispecies being-with directs it to the responsive and unresponsive aspects of living counterparts. Multiversal dwelling directs it to habitation, orientation and the situated possibilities of living. Multimateriality directs it to material affordance, resistance, constraint and transformation. Multisymbolization directs it to naming, classification, articulation, convention and stabilisation. A relation between any two items can be asserted across all five, and asserting it identifies no sixth process operating alongside or beneath them. None of this prohibits the ordinary use of the word relation. What it refuses is the promotion of a descriptive predicate into an ontological constituent.

An attentive reader will turn the criticism back on LVT. If relation is disqualified because it applies to anything, might coordination be equally universal? The answer cannot be that coordination is a better word; LVT does not ask coordination as such to explain anything. Its explanatory claims are carried by distinctions, each of which specifies conditions of nonapplication and can be settled for a particular case. Recursivity is settled aspect by aspect: a horse answers to the rider's hand while its weight in the saddle answers to nothing, and a rider who confused the two would soon be on the ground (Ecks 2026c). Recursive attribution, what kind of counterpart a being is engaged as, varies independently of recursive relevance, how much ongoing coordination depends on it, so that a newborn may reorganise a household's sleep and labour while what kind of being it is remains unsettled for weeks (Conklin and Morgan 1996). Coordination can succeed or fail; recursive availability can be open or closed; recognition can occur or be withheld; noninteraction can be protective or coercive; an articulation can be consequential or inconsequential; a stake can be borne by one party and controlled by another. Each of these has a null case, and each can be wrong about a given situation. LVT's vocabulary is itself an L4 stabilisation, and it must meet the test it applies to others: its distinctions are questions to bring to a case, revisable in the light of what the case discloses.

VIII. The Work of Not Interacting

Bridget Bradley's fieldwork, carried out over sixteen months in 2015 and 2016 with people living with body-focused repetitive behaviours (BFRBs), above all trichotillomania, the repetitive pulling out of one's own hair, and with parents, partners and professionals in the United Kingdom and the United States, provides the test the argument requires (Bradley and Ecks 2018: 3). The material was first published in the vocabulary of relatedness: the 2018 article read hair pulling through stigma, kinship and the forms of relatedness that support groups make possible (Bradley and Ecks 2018). A reanalysis of the same material through Goffman's theory of stigma and through LVT identified a phenomenon that runs through nearly every case and that the vocabulary of relatedness was poorly equipped to foreground: people arranging their lives so that certain disclosures, questions, bodily inspections and interventions do not happen, which the reanalysis calls organised noninteraction (Ecks and Bradley 2026). Most participants "tried to keep their hair pulling a secret from everybody, not only those encountered in public spheres but even close family members", and their wish to conceal was "based on well-founded fears about revealing it" (Bradley and Ecks 2018: 5). Because the two analyses address substantially the same empirical material, they allow a comparison of analytical approaches that no hypothetical contrast could supply.

Heather's case shows sustained closure after failed disclosure. In her twenties she learned from a magazine that what she did to her hair had a medical name, and she telephoned her father, a doctor, to ask whether he could find out more. When she rang back a few days later he told her: "no, no, no, no, your mum says not to indulge you." Her parents had never spoken to her about her hair, even when the crown of her head had gone bare at primary school. Her conclusion was brief: "So I don't talk about it with them. And I don't [now] and I don't think I will [again]. There's no point" (Bradley and Ecks 2018: 5). Heather obviously remains related to her parents, and nothing about the case is clarified by saying so. What the episode reorganised is what will be askable in family life. The question it raises is which aspects of her living remain recursively available to her parents, which she has withdrawn, and what the withdrawal costs her, since it protects her from further dismissal while depriving her of the recognition she had asked for.

Tiffany's case shows the consequential non-event. At ten, attending a conference of the TLC Foundation, a US organisation for body-focused repetitive behaviours, she went swimming with other children, "an activity she usually avoided due to her trich" (Bradley and Ecks 2018: 9). The notable day reveals an extensive background of ordinary days on which she did not swim, and on which a whole category of encounter, the exposed head, the noticing child, the question at the poolside, was prevented. The ethnography records those days only by contrast with the exceptional one. What matters in them is the multimediated work, bodily, material, spatial and symbolic, through which a possible encounter is ordinarily made not to happen, and that work protects her from exposure while restricting what she can do.

The parents' cases show learning not to make a child's condition an object of intervention. Parents typically began by watching, questioning, correcting and trying to stop the pulling, and the 2018 article observed that such attempts at caring "fail because they increase tensions and, subsequently, they increase pulling behavior" (Bradley and Ecks 2018: 4–5). Mandy used to brush her daughter's hair each night before bed and sob while doing it, and she now thinks this "might have made Frankie feel even more ashamed and guilty". She came to see that when a child is "adamant and defiant about receiving help … it's their journey to be on, it's not ours" (Bradley and Ecks 2018: 7). Mark says that when he looks at his daughter he no longer sees only the bald spot, the wig or the missing eyebrows, but "all of the wonderful things that are her" (Bradley and Ecks 2018: 8). A relation-centred account can classify both monitoring and withdrawing as varieties of parental care. That classification does not explain why increased scrutiny worsened the situation while reduced scrutiny could improve it, and the explanation lies in what monitoring does to a child's embodied coordination: it turns an activity often experienced as pleasurable or regulating into an object of another's recursive attention.

Table 1. Relational and LVT framings of the trichotillomania material

The comparison in Table 1 does not assert that a sophisticated relational anthropologist is incapable of asking LVT's questions. It asks which framework supplies the explanatory distinctions, and whether relation explains anything once those distinctions have been specified. Once the consequences have been explained through the five mediations, recursive availability, discernment and vital stakes, what explanatory work remains for relation to perform? If the answer is that the phenomena can also be redescribed as relations, relationality has not explained them.

A Strathernian reply is easy to anticipate. All three cases display relations: an altered parent–child relation, relations of avoidance and concealment, relations made differently visible. The reply is correct, and conceding it costs nothing. Nothing in the argument depends on showing that no relations exist in these cases, and to attempt such a proof would accept the terms the argument rejects. The point is that the significant phenomenon is not identified by redescribing every difference as a different relation. The explanatory work is done by distinguishing which recursive openings are established or blocked, by whom, with what embodied and material consequences, and in response to which vital stakes.

The same scrutiny applies to the reanalysis itself. Its conclusion returns to the vocabulary of the original article: "One of the fundamental achievements of relatedness, the present reading adds, is knowing when not to interact. Noninteraction stands in no opposition to relatedness and is one of the conditions that make relatedness livable." Elsewhere it proposes that "recursive restraint is part of the relation", and it even introduces LVT's three types of counterpart as describing "relations in which a recursive being engages something" (Ecks and Bradley 2026). These formulations kept continuity with the original publication, and they still grant relatedness explanatory priority. What gives the reanalysis its force is the recognition that participants invest substantial labour in preventing particular aspects of their living from becoming available to another's recursive intervention, and no more comprehensive inventory of relations would have supplied it. Calling this an achievement of relatedness leaves the relevant mechanism unspecified. Noninteraction, moreover, can be an achievement without being beneficial, and the vital outcomes differ even where broadly recognisable family relationships remain unchanged: Heather's closure protects and deprives at once, Tiffany's avoidance shields and restricts, and a parent's withdrawal from monitoring can be care where an observer might see neglect.

IX. Visibility as Intervention

Strathern's anthropology is in large part an anthropology of how relations are made visible: gifts objectify relations, persons appear in forms that reveal the relations composing them, and the painting on her cover is read for what it shows. The trichotillomania material establishes something more troubling than a limit on that approach. Making something visible can damage the very living whose understanding it is supposed to advance. The sequence recurs throughout the ethnography. Hair loss becomes noticeable. Someone asks, comments, intervenes or attempts correction. Recursive attention is heightened toward a bodily activity that may have been pleasurable or regulating in its immediate experience; participants "unanimously rejected the description of 'self-harm'" and described pulling as making them "feel relaxed and happy" (Bradley and Ecks 2018: 2). The intervention intensifies distress and pulling. Concealment, avoidance or the learned restraint of others may subsequently improve the person's ability to live. In that sequence visibility is neither neutral nor an automatic advance, and it can impose an unwanted recursive demand.

Two errors follow from treating visibility as the accomplishment that matters, and they are independent of each other. The first is relational reification. What becomes visible need not be a relation: it may be an embodied disturbance, a material transformation, an unmet need, a possibility of intervention, or an L4 classification. Calling it a relation adds no explanatory content unless the kind and consequence of that relation are independently specified, and once they are, the specification does the work. The second is the treatment of visibility as an unexamined epistemic good. The injunction to make relations visible is mistaken twice over. It presupposes that relations are what have been concealed and what inquiry must disclose, whereas living proceeds through co-mediation, with no relations awaiting discovery. And it privileges visibility without asking what the transition to visibility does. A coordination that becomes an object of attention has undergone a change in recursivity. What was absorbed may become problematic; what was privately discerned may become available for another's intervention; what could proceed without articulation may now demand explanation, justification or correction. Such changes can be welcomed or rejected, protective or coercive, therapeutic, humiliating or irrelevant. Their value does not follow from their visibility, and it depends on what is vitally at stake in making them visible, for whom, and under what conditions.

This reframes the relation between L1 and L2 coordination and its articulation. LVT's principle of invisible value holds that the coordinations most fully meeting a vitality stake are also the most likely to disappear from view, because they no longer need attention (Ecks 2026c). A household whose feeding, sleep and care run smoothly produces little that is visible, and a child whose pulling is not watched may live more easily than one whose pulling is. Two symmetrical errors follow from neglecting L1 and L2 (Ecks 2026d). The first assumes that what has not been articulated or displayed cannot have been consequential, and it is the characteristic risk of an anthropology that concentrates on moments at which relations are exchanged, displayed and contested. The second assumes that what has been articulated or displayed must already have been consequential. Strathern is no culture-as-text theorist, and her work criticises the assumption that meanings sit in symbols waiting to be read. Her anthropology of visibility nonetheless shares with interpretive anthropology an analytical privilege: the assumption that what is vitally consequential is sufficiently accessible through what is made apparent, in exchange in one case and in public symbols in the other. LVT names the related error mediational misfit, the collapse of several mediations into one (Ecks 2026c). A relational account of persons routes everything through being-with, so that embodiment appears as a site where relations are received and dwelling as the setting in which they occur.

Ethnography is itself a practice of making visible, and the same criterion applies to it. The reanalysis observes that structured instruments "register what has entered recursive availability", so that achieved noninteraction appears to them as the absence of a problem, and that the fieldworker, who herself lives with trichotillomania, was told things participants said they had never told anyone: her presence was "a selective opening, a setting in which an otherwise closed topic became askable" (Ecks and Bradley 2026). An opening of that kind is made on participants' terms. To publish what they have arranged their lives not to disclose is a further shift in recursivity whose consequences fall on them, whatever it achieves for a readership. The air pump returns here in another form. The girl who covers her eyes declines the position of spectator, and in a painting about a display that kills what it displays, her refusal to look is the one response proportionate to what is at stake. An anthropology that measures its success by what it renders visible needs to ask, case by case, whether the move into visibility serves the lives under investigation or only the audience gathered around the table.

X. Relevance Before Comparability

Strathern's contrast between Melanesian and Western sociality is an explicitly scholarly construction, and such constructions are legitimate. Comparison always selects its dimensions, and neither society compared supplies them; anthropology did much to dismantle the ranking of societies while remaining far less consistent in examining the selection of the dimensions along which they were compared (Ecks 2026a). What a scholarly construction owes its readers is a declaration of its analytical stakes, and Strathern declares hers: the Melanesian material is set against Western assumptions in order to expose the analyst's own equipment.

Comparative anthropology nonetheless faces two requirements, and neither replaces the other (Ecks 2026d). The first is relevance: why is the chosen dimension consequential for the living under study? The second is comparability: are the phenomena being compared of equivalent evidential and analytical standing? Strathern's construction compares two analytical fictions and meets the second requirement in its own terms. Its uptake has neglected the first. When "Melanesian persons are dividual" circulates as a finding, a construction whose stakes were analytical is read as a report on what organises Melanesian living, and the question whether relations were where Melanesian stakes lay has been answered without being asked. Edward LiPuma's argument that individual and dividual aspects of persons coexist everywhere, with modernity shifting their balance, was an early correction from within the literature (LiPuma 1998); it kept the binary as the axis of comparison and redistributed its poles. If relation is to be the dimension along which two forms of life are compared, the comparison must show that relations of the kind it specifies are where the vital stakes of those forms of life are concentrated, and it must say how it knows.

XI. Conclusion: Living Without Foundational Relations

The demonstrated claim of this article is that the dividual reverses the priority of individual and relation while leaving four inherited terms in place: the person as explanandum, transaction or relation as explanans, the boundary of the person as the organising problem, and the individual as the reference point. The dividual remains intelligible only through the individual it negates. The genealogical hypothesis is that this architecture descends from early modern transactive dualism, and more directly from the separation of the person from the living organism that runs from Locke's forensic person through Radcliffe-Brown, together with Mauss's account of persons mingled with what they exchange. The hypothesis is offered as a hypothesis, and its strongest links are those Strathern herself documents and those anthropology's founders made explicit.

The further claims stand independently of the genealogy. Relations are analytical predicates, applicable to anything, and when made foundational they have no null case, so that their universality is evidence of descriptive availability and of nothing else. Strathern's reading of the air pump, which finds knowledge being made where the painting shows a death being timed for an audience, is a small instance of the larger difficulty. Her historicisation of relation, and her recognition that relations obscure relations, leave this untouched, because her remedy for an inadequate relational description is always a further relational description, and because her anthropology retains the making-visible of relations as the characteristic accomplishment of knowledge. The trichotillomania material shows what that retention costs. Much consequential living consists in preventing recursive encounters, in keeping coordinations from becoming visible or articulated, and in learning not to intervene. Those achievements can be redescribed as relations, and the redescription explains none of them.

LVT therefore makes a stronger claim than that relations deserve lower priority. There is no need to posit relations as foundational at all. Living neither awaits the formation of relations nor requires relationality to constitute what would otherwise be isolated individuals; it is ongoing, recursively co-mediated coordination, most of it unarticulated, in which distinctions, recognitions, transactions and concealments become consequential without being ontological starting points. LVT must apply the same discipline to itself. Mesocosmography begins by asking what is vital in a case and allows the case to declare its own coordinative organisation, and its own distinctions remain revisable in the light of what a case discloses (Ecks 2026c).

Rendering living visible is not the aim of anthropology unless the move into visibility proves vital to the lives under investigation. The relevance of a relation, like the value of a disclosure, must be discovered through attention to living, and it cannot be presumed from its availability within a symbolic or disciplinary framework. The deepest task for an anthropology of personhood is therefore less to decide whether persons are individual or dividual than to ask why anthropology made the relationship between individuals and relations its fundamental problem at all, what was at stake for anthropology in doing so, and what it has been unable to distinguish as a result.

References

Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.

Bradley, Bridget, and Stefan Ecks. 2018. "Disentangling Family Life and Hair Pulling: Trichotillomania and Relatedness." Medical Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2018.1476509.

Conklin, Beth A., and Lynn M. Morgan. 1996. "Babies, Bodies, and the Production of Personhood in North America and a Native Amazonian Society." Ethos 24 (4): 657–694.

Ecks, Stefan. 2025. "Beyond Enclosure: Transactive Dualism, Multimediation, and Health in Mexico City." Current Anthropology 66 (6).

Geertz, Clifford. 1973a. "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture." In The Interpretation of Cultures, 3–30. New York: Basic Books.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973b. "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight." In The Interpretation of Cultures, 412–453. New York: Basic Books.

Geertz, Clifford. 1974. "'From the Native's Point of View': On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding." Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 28 (1): 26–45.

Hallowell, A. Irving. 1960. "Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior, and World View." In Culture in History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin, edited by Stanley Diamond, 19–52. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hume, David. 2000 [1739]. A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by David Fate Norton and Mary J. Norton. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LiPuma, Edward. 1998. "Modernity and Forms of Personhood in Melanesia." In Bodies and Persons: Comparative Perspectives from Africa and Melanesia, edited by Michael Lambek and Andrew Strathern, 53–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Locke, John. 1975 [1694]. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, edited by Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Locke, John. 1988 [1690]. Two Treatises of Government, edited by Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marriott, McKim. 1976. "Hindu Transactions: Diversity without Dualism." In Transaction and Meaning: Directions in the Anthropology of Exchange and Symbolic Behavior, edited by Bruce Kapferer, 109–142. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

Mauss, Marcel. 1985 [1938]. "A Category of the Human Mind: The Notion of Person; the Notion of Self." In The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History, edited by Michael Carrithers, Steven Collins and Steven Lukes, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mauss, Marcel. 1990 [1925]. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, translated by W. D. Halls. London: Routledge.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1940. "On Social Structure." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 70 (1): 1–12.

Smith, Adam. 1976a [1759]. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, edited by D. D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Smith, Adam. 1976b [1776]. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, edited by R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Spiro, Melford E. 1970. Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes. New York: Harper and Row.

Spiro, Melford E. 1993. "Is the Western Conception of the Self 'Peculiar' within the Context of the World Cultures?" Ethos 21 (2): 107–153.

Strathern, Marilyn. 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Strathern, Marilyn. 2020. Relations: An Anthropological Account. Durham: Duke University Press.