What We Notice, What We Don’t: A First Introduction to Social Anthropology

How to Read This Book

This short book gathers four pieces of writing that began life as lectures for first-year students in Introduction to Social Anthropology. Each can be read on its own, but they were revised to be read together and in order, because they make a single argument from four different directions. The argument is that anthropology, a discipline that can in principle study anything humans do, say or think, has always been shaped by decisions taken before any particular inquiry begins: decisions about what is worth noticing, about what the word culture should cover, about which dimensions societies should be compared on, and about who is entitled to classify whom. None of these decisions is wrong merely because it was made in advance. Each becomes a problem when it is forgotten, so that a habit of the discipline starts to look like a fact about the world.

Chapter 1 asks what anthropology is, and finds that none of the usual answers (the study of humans, of culture, by fieldwork, of difference) quite holds up. What the discipline studies has depended above all on what catches its attention: the strange, the symbolic, the political and the contested. Sleep, which fills a third of every human life and has stood at the margins of a century of anthropological writing, shows how much falls outside that pattern. The chapter introduces five mediations of living (embodiment, being-with, dwelling, multimateriality and multisymbolization), terms drawn from Living Value Theory, a framework I have developed elsewhere, which return throughout the book, and ends with an instruction to treat your own life as evidence.

Chapter 2 is the longest, and it can comfortably be read in two sittings. It follows the word culture from a Roman farmer leading a pig, a lamb and a calf around his fields to the modern habit of speaking of “a culture” as a bounded thing. Its central claim is that, from the eighteenth century onwards, the word was cut loose from the tending of bodies, places and animals, and that the nineteenth century hardened this narrowing into a partition between culture and nature which later critics of ranking, from Herder to Boas, did not undo.

Chapter 3 returns to the same history with a different question. If cultures are to be compared, on what dimensions, and who chose them? Relativism taught the discipline to refuse to rank societies, but it did not teach it to examine the grid of kinship, religion, law and exchange along which societies were compared. The chapter argues that Malinowski, at the founding of British social anthropology, had already stated the alternative: find out what concerns people most intimately, and build the comparison afterwards.

Chapter 4 applies these lessons to personhood, one of anthropology’s favourite comparative topics. Starting from a classroom vote on whether a newborn, a company, a river, an elephant and a chatbot are persons, it shows that several quite different questions travel under the one word, and that behind every classification of persons stands a prior question that is rarely asked: who is entitled to ask?

Two complementary critiques run through Chapters 2 and 3, and it helps to hold them apart. The first concerns the partition between culture and nature, which decides in advance what the word culture can include. The second concerns the selection of comparative dimensions, which decides in advance what comparison will look for. Chapter 4 adds a third, the allocation of authority to those who classify. A short conclusion draws the threads together, a glossary at the end explains the terms that recur across the chapters, and each chapter closes with a few questions to take into seminars or into your own notebook.

Chapter 1: What Catches Our Attention, and What Does Not

I. A Discipline With Unlimited Subjects

Every academic discipline usually announces itself through what it studies. Economics studies trade, money and banking. Law studies law. Medicine studies how to make people well again. Ask what anthropology studies and the question comes apart almost as soon as it is asked, because the honest answer is that anthropology studies whatever anthropologists have decided is worth studying, and that list is close to endless. Marriage, money, witchcraft, childbirth, houses, nationalism, social media: pretty much anything goes. Put the question to a room of new students and ask for an unusual hobby, and someone will offer dance, and within seconds it is possible to sketch what an anthropology of dance would look like, who learns it from whom, what a trained body is expected to do, what a performance is understood to communicate, who is allowed to watch and who is not. The same exercise works for almost any answer the room gives, because there is a good chance that somebody, somewhere, has already written an anthropology of exactly that.

This is not a reassuring way for a discipline to introduce itself in its first hour. If topic cannot do the defining work it does for economics or law, something else has to, and none of the usual candidates turns out to hold up on close inspection. What makes the situation stranger still is that the very fact showing anthropology can study nearly anything also reveals something close to the opposite of unlimited coverage: enormous regions of human life have simply never been looked at. A discipline with an almost unlimited licence has produced a strikingly patchy record, and that record is not patchy at random. It follows a pattern, and the pattern is one of the more useful things anthropology has to teach about itself.

The gap between what anthropology could study and what it has actually studied will matter more, over the course of this chapter, than any of the tidy definitions usually offered in its place. That gap is the puzzle this chapter, and the book that follows it, exist to take seriously, and the rest of what follows is one way of trying to work out why the gap exists and what it has been hiding.

II. Four Answers That Almost Work

The first candidate answer is built into the word itself. Anthropos is Greek for human being, and the logy ending, the same one found in sociology or musicology, means the study or knowledge of something. Anthropology therefore looks, on the face of it, like the study of humans, and that is not wrong. The trouble is that almost every other discipline studies humans too. History studies humans, psychology studies humans, economics studies humans, and none of them would accept being folded into anthropology on that basis alone. Being interested in humans cannot be what marks the discipline out, however central it feels from the inside.

A second candidate is culture. Anthropologists talk about culture constantly, and for much of the twentieth century culture was offered as the discipline’s defining object, the thing that distinguished a properly anthropological question from a psychological or biological one. The difficulty is that culture has accumulated so many competing definitions over the course of the last century, well over a hundred by some counts (Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952), that many anthropologists no longer feel the word does much useful work at all. Some no longer describe their own research as being about culture in any straightforward sense, preferring more specific concepts that do not carry the same accumulated baggage. A word that can mean almost anything to almost anyone within a single discipline is not doing the defining work a discipline needs from its core concept.

A third candidate is method rather than object: long-term fieldwork. This is what social and cultural anthropology is popularly known for, the idea that an anthropologist goes and lives among the people being studied for an extended period, learns the local language, and records what daily life actually involves rather than relying on secondhand report. In my own case that meant years of research in Kolkata, asking people which doctors they went to when they were unwell, what medications they were taking, and how they drew the line, if they drew one at all, between a medicine and a food. I did as much of this as I could manage in Bengali rather than English, because so much of what people actually think slips away in translation, and because turning up somewhere for a short visit and asking questions through an interpreter produces a very different kind of knowledge from staying long enough to be trusted with the ordinary, unremarkable parts of someone’s week. This kind of sustained, unglamorous immersion, sometimes called deep hanging out, is real and distinctive. It is still not sufficient to define the whole discipline. A great deal of anthropological work does not involve fieldwork at all, and even during my own fieldwork in Kolkata I was constantly drawing on other kinds of evidence besides direct observation and conversation, medical records, prescribing patterns, conversations with pharmacists, printed advertising. Fieldwork is one slice of what anthropologists do, an important slice, but not the whole of it.

The fourth candidate is difference. Surely anthropology is the discipline that studies how humans differ from one another, across culture, class, gender and every other axis along which people distinguish themselves, and how humans differ from other animals. This candidate gets closer than the previous three, because difference really has organised most of what anthropologists have chosen to write about. It still will not quite hold, though, because it leaves entirely open the question of what is actually distinctive about being human once similarity, rather than difference, is put back into the picture, and because a discipline that goes looking specifically for difference runs the risk of finding more of it than is actually there. Each of these four answers, human, culture, fieldwork, difference, captures something true about anthropology and still fails to pin the discipline down on its own. That failure is worth taking seriously rather than treating as an embarrassment to be explained away before moving on to something more comfortable.

III. National Schools and the Edges of a Discipline

Part of the difficulty in settling on a single definition is that anthropology has never been organised the same way in every country that practises it. In North America, what is taught as a single discipline is conventionally divided into four fields: physical anthropology, concerned with human evolution and often with forensic work on bones, archaeology, linguistic anthropology, and social or cultural anthropology, which studies contemporary social life through long-term fieldwork. In Edinburgh, by contrast, social and cultural anthropology stands largely on its own. It is entirely possible to spend a career here, as I effectively have, without ever encountering a physical anthropologist, since the disconnect between the fields feels less like a shared discipline and more like two separate ones that happen to share a name. Archaeology occupies a similarly uncertain position. Most of my colleagues have little regular contact with archaeologists, even though some of my own recent work has involved close collaboration with an excavation team, for reasons that will become clear shortly. Linguistic anthropology exists here too, though again as its own strand rather than folded into the core of what social anthropologists do day to day.

These are not just administrative curiosities. Even today, German, French and American traditions of anthropology differ from one another and from the British tradition in ways that go well beyond vocabulary, reflecting different histories of colonial contact, different relationships to sociology and philosophy, and different founding figures whose influence still shapes what counts as a properly anthropological question in each national context. A discipline that cannot even agree, across its own national traditions, on where its boundaries lie is not a promising candidate for a single tidy definition, and the disagreement itself is instructive. It suggests that anthropology has always been less a fixed body of subject matter than an evolving set of institutional arrangements for deciding what counts as worth studying, arrangements that differ by country and by decade for reasons that have as much to do with history as with logic.

It is exactly this loosening of boundaries that has, in recent years, brought me into closer contact with archaeology than most of my social anthropology colleagues ever experience, through a collaboration with a team excavating one of the most extraordinary sites currently known anywhere in the world.

IV. Göbekli Tepe: A Monument Without an Explanation

The site is Göbekli Tepe, in what is now southeastern Turkey, and it is arguably the single most sensational archaeological discovery of the past century. It was built between roughly eleven and a half and ten thousand years ago, by people who still lived by hunting wild animals and gathering wild plants, before the domestication of crops and herds. There were no cities at this point in human history, no centralised states, none of the organisational apparatus that would normally be assumed necessary to drag enormous stones into place and raise monumental structures comparable, in scale if not in style, to something like Stonehenge. Yet that is exactly what happened, and similar structures have since been found at other sites across the region, raising the further question of how these groups coordinated such work and why they were motivated to undertake it. The site was long presented to the public as a ritual centre built before anyone lived in villages, the “world’s first temple”. More recent excavations by the German Archaeological Institute have revised that picture, finding domestic buildings, rainwater cisterns and large quantities of grinding equipment, evidence that people lived at Göbekli Tepe permanently while still depending on wild resources (Clare 2020).

The largest structures are circular enclosures, held up by massive T-shaped stone pillars carved with animal reliefs, and excavators have found skulls and other remains associated with them. What excavation alone has not supplied is a secure account of what these enclosures were actually for. The working assumptions on offer are ritual, or religious observance, or perhaps some kind of political gathering place, something like an early debating hall, but the honest position, shared by the archaeologists I collaborate with, is that their precise social and ceremonial functions remain uncertain.

This is exactly where a social anthropologist can contribute something excavation cannot supply on its own: not a confident reconstruction of Neolithic belief, since no anthropologist has any special access to what people twelve thousand years ago believed, but a disciplined sense of what might plausibly hold true of human life at any place, in any era, regardless of how differently people organised their symbols and their politics. There is more continuity across human groups, separated by tens of thousands of years and by every kind of cultural difference imaginable, than most of social anthropology’s history has been willing to notice, absorbed as it has been with cataloguing difference rather than continuity. Göbekli Tepe is as good a place as any to start taking that continuity seriously, rather than treating every gap in the archaeological evidence as an invitation to invent whichever story sounds most dramatic.

V. What Catches Our Attention

If anthropologists can study anything humans do, say or think, the obvious next question is what they actually end up studying, and the honest answer is that a narrow set of features reliably catches attention while everything else recedes. Something strange draws attention immediately, which is why early anthropology returned so often to practices like cannibalism, a subject so starkly different from the anthropologist’s own habits that it seemed to announce its own importance without further argument. Something with an obvious symbolic charge draws attention. Something political, something people are prepared to fight over, something that lends itself to being turned into a story, something contested: these are the usual triggers, and they recur across the discipline’s history with remarkable consistency.

The trouble with this list is that almost none of daily life actually meets any of these criteria. Most of a human life is lived in what philosophers have called being in the world, a seamless flow of activity that nobody has to stop and consciously interpret in order to carry out. Sitting in a lecture theatre is a good illustration of exactly this. No one in such a room needs instruction to sit down on seeing a chair, no one pauses to interpret the strange geometric shapes arranged in rows, and no one needs to check what the weather is doing outside in order to feel comfortable inside. None of this registers as strange, symbolic, political, narratable or contested, and that is precisely why it disappears from view. The world recedes from attention exactly to the extent that it is working smoothly, which is a good thing in itself, since nobody would want to spend their whole life consciously puzzling over chairs. But a discipline whose attention has been calibrated to notice difference will systematically fail to notice whatever is shared, and that asymmetry, difference becoming evidence while similarity sinks into an unexamined background, has shaped what anthropology has counted as worth knowing far more than any of its stated methods or theories ever admit.

VI. The Case of Sleep

Sleep is the clearest demonstration of this bias that I know, and it is worth dwelling on in some detail because of how completely it exposes the mechanism at work. A large reference work in the discipline, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, edited by two former Edinburgh colleagues, Alan Barnard and Jonathan Spencer, runs to many hundreds of pages across hundreds of separate entries (Barnard and Spencer 2010). When I searched the second edition for the word, sleep appeared three times, always in passing, never as the subject of its own sustained discussion. The one moment anyone says anything vaguely substantial about it at all belongs to another former Edinburgh colleague, Janet Carsten, whose work on kinship observes that a house is a place to eat, to sleep, to reproduce and to build a family. That single sentence is close to all the encyclopedia has to say about a state that occupies roughly a third of every human life, and probably a somewhat larger share of the anthropologist’s own life during long stretches of fieldwork. An encyclopedia records editorial priorities rather than everything a discipline has done, and there is a small but real anthropology of sleep, including comparative collections on night-time and sleep in Asia and Europe and on sleep around the world (Steger and Brunt 2003; Glaskin and Chenhall 2013). Its marginal place in a standard reference work is nonetheless a fair measure of how far sleep has stood from the centre of the discipline’s attention.

Run the earlier list of attention triggers against sleep and it fails every one. There is nothing exotic about it, nothing that lends itself readily to symbolisation. Ask what sleep stands for and the honest answer is very little, because people do not generally sleep in order to send a message about themselves to anyone else. And yet sleep is where an enormous amount of ordinary social contact actually happens. If you live in halls, the very first exchange of the day is often exactly this: a shuffle into the communal kitchen, a good morning, and then something about how the night went, whether it was long, whether it was broken, whether anyone is hungover. That is real interaction with real social significance, and still it carries almost no obvious symbolic charge and no political weight, at least not in any obvious sense that would catch a traditionally trained anthropological eye.

Sleep also resists the kind of cross-cultural difference anthropologists have traditionally gone looking for. No human society has ever decided, as a matter of cultural choice, to stop sleeping, because sleep is a metabolic requirement that cannot be constructed away by belief or convention. Walk into any fieldsite anywhere in the world and there is no need even to ask whether people there sleep, because of course they do, and a question with an obvious universal answer will never become the centrepiece of an ethnography built on documenting difference. Add to this the fact that sleep is something almost every animal does as well, in one form or another, and sleep ends up disqualified twice over. It is too universal across human cultures and too widely shared across species to register as the kind of difference the discipline has spent a century training itself to notice.

VII. Once You Start Looking

The moment sleep is taken seriously as a topic in its own right, it turns out to organise an enormous amount of human life that has received remarkably little sustained attention. Domestic architecture is one obvious example. Walls, stable floors, duvets and blankets can all be read as a built response to the fact that bodies grow cold and need somewhere secure in which to lose consciousness for hours at a stretch, and an entire world history of housing could plausibly be written starting from that single observation rather than from the usual categories of style, status or climate. The history of artificial light belongs on the same list. It is easy to forget, reading under electric light in a modern building, that electrification is a recent and geographically uneven achievement, and that its absence still structures entire ways of living in large parts of the world today. My colleague and friend Annu Jalais carried out fieldwork in the Sundarbans mangrove forests of the Ganges Delta in West Bengal, among communities who, at the time of her fieldwork, lived without electricity of any kind, not even solar lamps, in a landscape shared with tigers and crocodiles (Jalais 2010). There the sun set close to six o’clock and darkness was close to total within the hour. Evening meals were simple, often rice with a little shrimp, and most people were asleep by half past eight, in households whose days began early with fishing, crab collecting, and work in the fields and the forest. The rhythm of the day was organised around daylight rather than emptied by darkness. That is a history of sleep as much as it is a history of economics or ecology, and it is a history that a discipline focused on symbolism alone would never have thought to write.

Work and capitalism depend on sleep in equally concrete ways. An entire economy runs on the assumption that not everyone sleeps at the same time, which is why hospitals cannot allow it, and I once carried out research with hospital service managers in Scotland on precisely this question, the regulated sleep schedules of junior doctors. There was a period, within living memory, when junior doctors could be kept working for dangerously long stretches without any formal limit, until it became widely accepted that a doctor who has been awake for fifty hours straight is not operating at full capacity, brain surgery included, however dramatic that looks when a popular medical drama puts it on screen. War supplies an even starker version of the same problem. The amphetamines that later became a template for stimulant medication, including the drugs now prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, a diagnosis that has grown enormously over the past two decades, had been synthesised decades earlier, but it was the Second World War that turned them into a mass technology of wakefulness, issued to pilots and soldiers on several sides to keep them awake through long missions. Ritual and religion have their own sleep history too, from dream incubation practices in the ancient world to the entire field of sleep medicine that grew out of nineteenth and twentieth century attempts to measure and correct what happens to the body overnight, a field with its own instruments, its own diagnostic categories and its own history of medicalising something that had previously been left almost entirely alone.

Sleep debt is a newer twist on the same theme. Wearable trackers now tell people, often at the moment they wake up feeling perfectly fine, that they have accumulated dozens of hours of supposedly unpayable deficit, deficit that the device insists can never fully be repaid by an extra lie in at the weekend. Sleep researchers have even proposed a name, orthosomnia, for the anxiety this produces in people who have started trusting the device over their own body’s report of how it feels, and the most sensible remedy in many such cases is simply to stop wearing the tracker. Meanwhile the advice industry that has grown up around sleep, endless recommendations from friends, family and self-appointed experts about what to do or avoid in the hours before bed, has never converged on a single reliable rule that works for everyone, because sleep resists exactly the kind of deliberate, willed control that most advice quietly assumes is available. You cannot simply decide to sleep the way you can decide to finish a piece of work, and an enormous amount of contemporary anxiety about sleep comes from expecting it to respond to willpower in a way it never has and never will.

VIII. Retraining Attention: Bodies, Others, and the World Before

Symbols Much of this blindness has a specific intellectual history rather than being some kind of natural or inevitable oversight. From the nineteen eighties onward, social and cultural anthropology became increasingly committed to the idea that culture is, at bottom, symbolisation, and that the anthropologist’s central task is to retrieve meaning from whatever practice happens to be under study. That commitment produced a great deal of valuable work, and it also carried a real cost, because a discipline trained above all to look for meaning will struggle to notice anything that does not obviously carry any. Sleep is one casualty of this training. Sitting, waiting and digestion belong on the same list: ordinary, recurring activities that occupy enormous stretches of time and have received almost no anthropological attention, precisely because nobody trained in this way has been able to locate an obvious symbol lurking inside them.

Retraining that attention means starting somewhere other than meaning. It means beginning with three conditions, which this book calls multisensorial embodiment, multispecies being-with and multiversal dwelling, or embodiment, being-with and dwelling for short. The terms come from a framework I have developed elsewhere under the name Living Value Theory (Ecks 2026a), and they are introduced here because the rest of this book relies on them. Multisensorial embodiment is the simple fact of having a body that senses, tires, heals, sleeps, ages and eventually dies. Multispecies being-with is the fact of living surrounded by others, human and otherwise, whose actions and moods matter constantly whether or not anything is ever said about it. Multiversal dwelling is the climate, gravity, daylight, altitude and everything else making up the physical conditions of existence that no human hand created and that remain largely outside human control. None of these three can be renegotiated by agreement in the way a word or a convention sometimes can. The contrast should not be pushed too far: symbolic arrangements, once stabilised in institutions such as law, can be just as hard for the person subject to them to change, and bodily and environmental conditions can often be partly altered through social and technical means. The difference lies less in fixity than in the kind of counterpart each involves, and in how far it is available to be reworked at all. Nobody reading this page made the oxygen they are currently breathing, and nobody is seriously questioning gravity, because it continues to behave exactly as it always has, whatever anyone happens to believe about it.

A course built around the human life course, such as the one this book accompanies, rather than around anthropology’s more conventional topic categories, ends up organised along broadly these lines almost by necessity: conception, birth, childhood, becoming a person, work, sickness, death, memory. Death belongs firmly on this list as a metabolic certainty rather than merely an occasion for symbolisation. No culture has ever constructed its way out of dying, and the most important thing to understand about death, at least as a starting point, is not how a given society chooses to symbolise or mourn it but that it remains an absolute biological limit shared by every living thing that has ever existed, human or otherwise, a limit any anthropology of death worth the name has to hold in view before it turns to the meanings people build around it.

IX. The Non-Human Test

A useful discipline for checking any of this is what I call the non-human test. Take any topic under discussion and ask a simple question of it: would this also apply to an animal? Would it apply to a dog, an ant, a bee? Run embodiment, being-with and dwelling through that test and the answer is almost always yes, because these are conditions of being alive, not conditions of being specifically human. Science fiction cinema is unexpectedly useful here, since a good science fiction film often works by stripping away exactly these taken-for-granted conditions, altering gravity, removing a shared day and night cycle, imagining a world with no need to breathe, and it is precisely by removing them that the films make visible how much of ordinary human existence depends on planetary conditions nobody chose and nobody controls.

Run multimateriality, the making and shaping of things, and multisymbolization, the making and use of symbols, through the same test and the picture changes sharply. Some animals do build, and some animals do signal to one another in sophisticated ways, but what humans developed differs in kind as well as in scale: an open-ended coupling of the two. Humans make things that carry symbols and symbols that refer to things, including things that are absent, distant, past or merely possible, and each feeds back on the other across generations, so that symbols guide the making of new things and new things open new possibilities for symbolising. It is this sustained coupling, which allows humans to rebuild the worlds they inhabit again and again, rather than embodiment or sociality as such, that marks what is distinctive about being human, and locating the distinction there, rather than in some vaguer appeal to culture or society in general, is a far more precise way of stating what anthropology has always been trying to say about human peculiarity. Taken together, embodiment, being-with, dwelling, multimateriality and multisymbolization make up five mediations of living, irreducible to one another, and they return in each of the chapters that follow (Ecks 2026a).

It is no accident that human-animal relations has become one of the fastest growing areas within the discipline over the past decade, with a large share of current doctoral students now working somewhere in this space. Anyone who has lived with a dog already understands the puzzle this research is trying to address. A dog reads its owner’s mood with a precision that plenty of humans lack, is deeply attuned to another creature’s state without anything resembling language or symbolic exchange, and yet remained, for most of the discipline’s history, excluded from the categories a tradition built around meaning-making was ever equipped to describe. The lecture theatre offers the same lesson from the opposite direction. It is a room full of primates sitting quietly still while one of them produces conventional sounds referring to people who died centuries ago and to entities that exist nowhere except in symbolic form, and at the very same moment nobody present treats the colour of the walls, whatever shade of grey or brown someone once selected for the space, as carrying any significance whatsoever. Embodiment, being-with and dwelling recede into the background here exactly as they do everywhere else, and so, in this particular case, does most of the room’s own materiality and symbolism. Both the shared and the strange are present in the same fifty minutes, and a discipline finally capable of noticing both at once is at last equipped to ask what actually makes this species peculiar, rather than assuming the answer in advance.

X. A Discipline That Keeps Changing What It Wonders About

None of this means anthropology has been getting its facts wrong for a century. What has been changing, whenever the discipline is said to be changing, is the attention rather than the facts, the sense of what is worth wondering about in the first place. Bronisław Malinowski and Alfred Radcliffe-Brown, the founding figures of British social anthropology, wondered about different things than Edward Evans-Pritchard did a generation later, and Victor Turner, trained in Manchester before moving to the United States, and Clifford Geertz, working in the American tradition of cultural anthropology, wondered about different things again from Claude Lévi-Strauss working in France. Reading any of them well means asking not only what they found but why that particular feature of human life struck them as worth the years of sustained attention it took to write about, when so much else, equally present in front of them at the time, apparently did not.

Malinowski’s own trajectory illustrates the point especially well. Before he became the founding figure most students meet first, associated above all with his long fieldwork in the Trobriand Islands, he attended lectures by Wilhelm Wundt, the German psychologist whose Völkerpsychologie, literally a psychology of peoples, treated comparative variation in thought and custom as a legitimate scientific problem in its own right, at a time when anthropology barely existed as a separate university discipline at all. Malinowski’s own later writing engaged directly and at length with Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis. Anthropology and psychology share closer origins than either discipline tends to admit today, and the two fields only drifted apart as psychology committed itself increasingly to laboratory experiment in a way that social anthropology, wedded to long fieldwork instead, never did. A student arriving at anthropology from psychology, as some readers of this book will have, is in a sense returning to a much older and closer relationship between the two than the current institutional separation between them would suggest.

What all of this points towards is that anthropology’s history is best read as a changing wonder profile, an evolving sense of which corners of an almost limitless field of possible topics happen to seem worth the discipline’s sustained attention at a given moment, rather than as the steady accumulation of a single settled subject matter that later scholars merely add detail to. Sleep’s marginal place in a century of anthropological writing, and its sudden claim on this chapter’s attention instead, is itself a small example of exactly this kind of shift taking place, in real time, in front of you.

XI. Trust Your Own Life as Evidence

If there is one practical instruction worth taking away from all this, it is to treat your own life as a legitimate first source of evidence, rather than as a poor substitute for evidence gathered somewhere more exotic. What happens to you, and around you, is exactly as significant as anything documented about a community thousands of miles away, if only because you are, as far as I am able to tell, a living human being, and living human beings are anthropology’s actual subject matter wherever they happen to be standing. Living in halls of residence is itself excellent material for this kind of attention, precisely because it puts people from very different backgrounds into daily contact over shared kitchens and shared routines, and difference tends to surface first in exactly these small domestic moments rather than in any grand pronouncement about culture in general.

I still remember, from my own first year at university, a flatmate taking a handful of fresh green lettuce and putting it into the microwave until it had cooked down to almost nothing. My first reaction was straightforward bewilderment: surely lettuce is meant to be eaten raw, straight from the bag. His answer was that cold, raw vegetables upset his stomach, and that cooking solved the problem easily enough. That small exchange, two students in a shared kitchen quietly disagreeing about lettuce, is close to ideal anthropological material, because it captures a real difference in bodily habit and expectation without needing any grand theory to make the difference visible in the first place. The skill worth developing over the course of this degree is noticing the moment such a small disagreement occurs and asking, seriously and without embarrassment, why one of you expected something different from the other, rather than letting the moment pass as a trivial curiosity about vegetables and nothing more. Every one of you already has years of exactly this kind of material sitting in memory, waiting for someone to take it seriously enough to ask why.

XII. What Anthropology Is

Taken together, this suggests a definition worth holding onto more than any of the four candidates considered earlier. Anthropology is the disciplined practice of wondering about how humans live, and especially about how other humans live differently from oneself. Its great strength is that almost any feature of human existence can, in principle, become a legitimate object of that wondering, which is no small thing to be able to say of any discipline. Its equally great weakness is that the discipline has never wondered about everything equally, and has consistently mistaken the strange, the symbolic and the contested for the whole of what matters in a life, while sleep, digestion, sitting and the ordinary company of others receded into a background that was never actually as uneventful as it looked from the outside. Learning to notice both of these things at once, what has been wondered about and what has not, is very close to the whole of what this course is going to ask of you over the coming year.

Questions to Take Further

Think of a part of your own day that takes up a lot of time but that nobody, including you, has ever thought worth describing. What would an anthropology of it have to look at first, and which of the five mediations would it involve? Apply the non-human test to something you consider distinctively human, such as a meal, a joke or a birthday. What survives the test, and what does not? Recall a small moment of difference in a shared kitchen or a shared house. What did each person expect, and where did the expectation come from?

Chapter 2: Lead the Pig-Lamb-Calf Around the Field A Deep History of the Word “Culture”

I. The Rite

Around 160 BCE, a Roman landowner named Cato the Elder wrote a farming manual. It survives complete, and it is, by a wide margin, one of the oldest pieces of continuous Latin prose we have. Buried in it, at chapter 141, is a set of instructions for purifying a farm.

A pig, a lamb and a calf (the suovetaurilia, the three sacrificial animals, which Cato specifies should still be suckling) are to be led or carried around the boundary of the fields. The farmer offers wine first to Janus and Jupiter, then addresses Mars directly, asking him to be well disposed and merciful toward the farmer, his house, and his household; to keep away sickness both visible and invisible, barrenness, blight, and unseasonable weather; to let the harvest, the corn, the vines, and the young plantations flourish and yield in abundance; and, in the same breath, to protect the shepherds and the flocks, and to grant health and strength to the farmer, his house, and everyone in it. The animals are then sacrificed.

Notice how much ground this single, short procedure covers, and how casually it moves between registers a modern reader has learned to keep separate. The instruction is practical to the point of being a checklist: lead the animals, say these words, in this order, to these three gods, whenever the time seems right. It is also, without any apparent sense of contradiction, cosmological: the health of a household and the fertility of a vineyard are treated as a single continuous problem, answerable to the same prayer, on the same afternoon, by the same man walking the same boundary. Nothing in the text marks a transition from “farming” to “religion” or from “economics” to “belief.” Cato’s manual does not distinguish these as different kinds of activity requiring different chapters, because the culture he is describing did not distinguish them either.

Read this instruction next to the modern sentence “I’m interested in Roman culture” and something has clearly gone missing along the way. Cato’s rite has nothing to do with ideas, art, belief, or custom in any sense a modern reader would recognise as “cultural” in the narrow sense: it is a bounded action performed on a specific piece of ground, involving three living animals, three named gods, a household, a flock, and a set of shepherds, undertaken to secure the ongoing health of the farm and of those who own it. Nobody in this scene is distinguishing between the natural world and a cultural one. The soil, the animals, the weather, the gods, and the people are all dealt with in a single, continuous operation. It is worth being exact about the vocabulary, since this is a chapter about the history of a word. The passage itself opens with the instruction to purify the land, agrum lustrare, and speaks of sacrifices and prayers; it does not call the rite cultura. The word belongs to the manual as a whole, De agri cultura, on the cultivation of the field, and the rite belongs inside the world that phrase covers: ploughing, manuring, pruning, breeding livestock, managing labour, and performing exactly this kind of rite.

None of this should be mistaken for care in any gentle sense. The operation that secured the farm’s flourishing ended the lives of the pig, the lamb and the calf, and the farm depended on the forced labour of enslaved people, whom Cato advises selling off, together with worn-out oxen, an old cart and old tools, once they are old or sick (On Agriculture 2.7). What cultivation names in Cato’s world is a combination of tending, maintenance, control and ritual obligation, held together in one practice but with very unequal stakes for those it held together. A coordination can succeed for the household that organises it while imposing heavy losses on other living beings caught up in it, and the history that follows should be read with that in mind.

This world of tending, rather than any metaphor or later philosophical borrowing, is what the word first referred to.

What follows is a history of how that word travelled from Cato’s field to a sentence like “corporate culture” or “Japanese culture”, and, more specifically, an account of the one transformation in that history that mattered more than all the others put together: the moment, roughly two hundred and fifty years ago, when the word was cut loose from exactly the things Cato’s rite holds together, and quietly began to mean something close to their opposite.

This is a story that cannot be told from etymology alone, and one that anthropology has not entirely failed to notice: Raymond Williams, among others, traced much of this territory with great care (Williams 1976). What has been less often asked is what the split actually did, structurally, to the pieces it separated, and why those pieces have kept reappearing, unrecognized, in arguments that look unrelated to the history that produced them. That is the specific question this chapter is built to answer.

II. What Cultura Actually Covered

Cato’s manual is not a short document, and its scope matters for what comes later. It covers how to equip a farm and lay out its buildings, how to feed and doctor livestock, how to manage the labour of the people who worked the estate, how to press olives, how to store and sell a harvest, and, repeatedly, how to perform the religious rites that Roman farming assumed were part of the same undertaking as ploughing. There are recipes for keeping oxen healthy through the winter, instructions for curing hams, formulas for treating a sprain, notes on which slaves should be assigned which tasks and how they should be fed and clothed, and prayers for occasions ranging from the purification of the fields to the felling of a sacred grove that needed to be cleared for cultivation, each requiring its own careful form of words to avoid offending whatever spirit resided there. Agri cultura, the tending of a field, was never narrowly agronomic. It named an entire, ongoing discipline of tending, maintenance and control extending across soil, animals, dependants, and gods at once, because in the world the word came from, none of these were separable projects requiring separate vocabularies.

Grammatically, cultura also behaved in a way worth noting before it becomes important later. In its classical uses it was a relational word, the cultivation of something: cultura agri, the cultivation of a field, and later, in Cicero, the cultivation of a mind. Even when medieval Latin came to use culturae for individual cultivated fields, as described below, the word still named ground under continuing work rather than an abstract condition or a way of life. It named a relationship, an ongoing verb-shaped activity applied to a specific object, rather than a possession or a finished state. A Roman farmer did not have culture; he was engaged in the cultura of his land, his vines, his herds, a distinction that will turn out to be the whole story in miniature.

III. One Verb, Three Domains

Cultura comes from the verb colere, and colere’s own range of meanings is worth sitting with, because it already does, unassisted, something later centuries would need an entire theoretical apparatus to recover. Colere means to till or cultivate. It also means to inhabit or dwell in a place. And it also means to tend, honour, or worship: a person, an ancestor, a god.

Each of these senses produced its own descendant noun. The sense of dwelling gave colonus, a settler or farmer attached to a place, and from colonus we get “colony.” The sense of honouring or worshipping gave cultus, and from cultus we get “cult.” The sense of ongoing tending gave cultura itself. Three English word-families, culture, colony, cult, all descend from one Latin verb that never distinguished between tilling ground, living in a place, and honouring a relation, because Roman usage did not experience these as three different kinds of activity. They were three faces of the same disposition toward the world: sustained, attentive tending, maintenance and obligation extended to whatever the household depended on, whether that was a field, a home, or a god.

The fact that Cato’s own rite already fuses all three senses in a single passage is, then, no coincidence worth marvelling at from a modern vantage point, but simply what the word, and the disposition it named, would have been expected to do. A Roman farmer who was colens agrum, cultivating his field, was, in the same gesture, colens locum, dwelling in and belonging to that particular place, and colens deos, honouring the gods on whom the place’s fertility was understood to depend. The purification rite is one activity rather than three performed back to back, described from three angles by a language that had never needed to separate them, and would not need to for another eighteen hundred years.

IV. Cicero’s Field of the Soul

The most consequential extension of the word happens a century after Cato, in Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations. In the second book, Cicero writes what would become the most quoted sentence in the word’s entire history, cultura animi philosophia est: philosophy is the cultivation of the soul (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 2.13).

The analogy Cicero builds is explicit and sustained. A field, however naturally fertile, will not yield a harvest without tending; left alone, it reverts to bramble and weed. A human mind is exactly the same. Left untended, it does not simply stay neutral: it deteriorates, overrun by the moral and intellectual equivalent of weeds. Philosophy is the plough and the seed. It roots out vice the way a farmer roots out thistles, and it prepares the mind to bear fruit the way tilled soil bears grain. Horace, writing not long after, uses the same image in his own letters, comparing an uneducated mind to an unkempt, overgrown field, evidence that Cicero was not inventing an isolated metaphor but drawing on an association that already felt natural to educated Romans, in a society whose economic base and self-image were both deeply agrarian. Roman aristocratic identity, well into the late Republic, still liked to imagine itself descended from citizen-farmers (Cincinnatus called from his plough to save the state and returning to it afterward is the era’s favourite parable of virtue), so an orator reaching for agricultural language to describe the training of a mind was reaching for the single most prestigious vocabulary of self-discipline his culture possessed, not for a decorative flourish borrowed from a distant world of manual labour.

What matters most about Cicero’s move is what it does not change. Cultura animi keeps exactly the grammatical shape of cultura agri. It is still cultivation of something: a mind, not a possession; a process, not a finished condition. Rather than inventing the free-standing noun “culture” that a modern reader carries around unconsciously, Cicero has done something narrower and, in its way, more radical: he has extended the logic of agriculture to a new object without touching the logic itself. The soul is now a field. It can be well or badly tended, fertile or barren, weeded or overgrown, but it is still, grammatically and conceptually, something that receives cultura, not something that possesses “Culture.”

V. A Long, Stable Middle

What happened to the word for the roughly sixteen centuries between Cicero and the eighteenth century is, in its own way, the most striking part of this history, because so little happened to it. Through the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and across the whole of the medieval period, the word’s shape held.

The evidence for this is unusually concrete, because medieval Latin left behind an enormous paper trail, charters, monastic land surveys, estate records, collected in the great glossaries of medieval Latin compiled centuries later. In these documents, cultura overwhelmingly means ager cultus: a cultivated field, and specifically a particular, nameable, measurable one, its size often reckoned by how much ground a single plough team could work in a year. These culturae are physical properties, entered into monastic registers alongside meadows, woodland, and mills. A monastery might be granted three culturae bordering a named forest; a dispute might turn on whether a given plot had been worked continuously enough to still count as one. The word, in these documents, is doing exactly the administrative and legal work a modern land registry does, and it does that work precisely because it still names an ongoing relationship rather than a fixed category: a cultura left untended for long enough stops being a cultura at all and reverts, in the language of the charters themselves, to wilderness. Something has to keep happening for the word to keep applying.

The religious sense inherited from cultus persisted alongside the agricultural one, and for the same underlying reason: in a deeply agrarian medieval world, the rhythm of tending the land and the rhythm of religious observance were not separate calendars. Monastic estates were themselves often called culturae, land tended in the dual sense of farmed and consecrated, worked by lay brothers whose labour was itself understood as a form of devotion. When the word crossed into English by way of French in the early fifteenth century, this older sense crossed with it. William Caxton, printing the Golden Legend in 1483, uses “culture” to mean worship: a usage that would strike a modern reader as almost unrecognizable, and that only makes sense once cultura’s full inheritance from colere is back in view.

VI. The Renaissance Recovers Cicero, Narrowly

Cicero’s phrase gets a second, more deliberate life during the Renaissance, and it is worth pausing on this revival specifically, because it shows educated Europeans reaching directly back past a thousand years of agrarian and devotional usage to retrieve the one sense that would eventually carry the word forward. Humanist scholars, immersed in classical texts recovered and newly printed across the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, took up cultura animi as a description of their own project: the studia humanitatis, the deliberate, disciplined formation of a person through grammar, rhetoric, poetry, moral philosophy, and history, understood as the tilling of an inner field exactly as Cicero had described it. The cultivated man, l’uomo colto in the Italian the humanists themselves used, was, quite literally, a man who had been ploughed, weeded, and brought to fruit.

This is the moment the word begins, very quietly, to narrow. Cicero’s own usage kept cultivation-of-the-soul and cultivation-of-the-field as parallel, equally weighted halves of a single analogy. Renaissance humanism, by contrast, is primarily interested in the mind’s side of that analogy, and treats the agricultural half increasingly as a picturesque figure of speech rather than a lived, parallel discipline. The humanist does not spend his afternoons in the field the way Cato did; he spends them with a text. The word is still grammatically tethered: cultivation of something, a mind, a character, but the something it is most often attached to has begun to drift away from the soil that originally gave the metaphor its force. This is not yet the eighteenth-century break. Nobody in 1500 would have said a person simply possessed Culture, full stop. But the imbalance that later makes the break possible (mind over field, symbol over soil) is visibly building here, two centuries before the grammatical rupture itself, in libraries and lecture halls rather than in the fields those same humanists’ grandfathers might still have worked.

By the time English writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Thomas More, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes among them, began writing of “the culture of the mind” alongside “the culture of the earth,” they were extending both the humanist and the older agrarian sense side by side, still within Cicero’s original frame. The word remained tethered. It was always the culture of something. For roughly eighteen hundred years, in other words, from a Roman farmer’s field to an English philosopher’s page, nobody used the word to mean a thing a person or a people simply had.

VII. The Break

The eighteenth century is where all of this changes, and the change is worth stating precisely, because it is easy to blur into a vague sense that “culture became more abstract over time” when what actually happened was sharper and more dateable than that.

Sometime around the middle of the eighteenth century, first in French and shortly after in English, the word’s grammatical requirement quietly falls away. “Culture” stops needing an object. It becomes possible, for the first time in the word’s recorded history, to speak of Culture on its own: not the culture of a mind, a field, or a soul, but Culture as a general condition, a state of refinement a person or a society either has or lacks. German borrows the term at almost the same moment, first as Cultur and then, through the nineteenth century, as Kultur.

Once the word could stand alone, it was almost immediately put to a specific and consequential use. Enlightenment historians and philosophers adopted singular, capital-letter Culture as a secular measuring stick, closely twinned with the newly coined “civilization.” This was the great age of the universal history: ambitious, sweeping accounts, by writers such as Voltaire, Turgot, and later Condorcet, of humanity’s progress through successive stages from ignorance and superstition toward reason, commerce, and enlightenment. Culture and civilisation gave this genre its vocabulary: a society could now be placed, with apparent scientific confidence, at a specific point along a single line running from savagery through barbarism to the polished, rational civilisation of contemporary Western Europe. Far from being a neutral bit of terminology, this gave the imperial hierarchies of the era an intellectual apparatus: a way of saying that some peoples simply had more Culture than others, in the same sense that some fields yield more grain, and a way of dressing colonial administration in the language of a civilising mission rather than mere conquest.

This is the hinge the rest of this history turns on. Before it, cultura was a verb-shaped relationship, always attached to embodiment, a place, or a bond of reverence. After it, “Culture” is a noun-shaped rank, detachable from any of them, and immediately recruited to sort human beings against each other.

It is worth noticing what happened to the older, purely agricultural sense of the word at exactly this moment, because English already had a separate, equally old term doing that job: husbandry. Through the medieval and early modern periods, “husbandry” had carried the everyday, practical weight of farming and animal care that “culture” also carried in its Ciceronian, mind-directed sense. As “culture” detached from any object and rose to name a general condition of refinement, husbandry did not rise with it. It stayed exactly where it had always been, tied to soil and livestock, and gradually took on a slightly lesser, more workmanlike connotation next to its newly abstract sibling. The split, in other words, was lexical as well as conceptual: English quietly sorted its inherited vocabulary so that one word could carry the prestige of mental and spiritual refinement while a separate word carried the unglamorous business of feeding animals and turning soil, and the language has kept them apart ever since. Nobody today speaks of “the husbandry of the mind” the way More or Bacon still could, three centuries ago, speak in the same breath of the culture of the earth and the culture of the soul.

VIII. Kultur Against Zivilisation

The word’s trajectory gets one further, consequential twist in German, and it deserves its own treatment because it shows the newly freed noun almost immediately splitting again, this time into two terms set against each other rather than one term standing serenely alone.

By the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, German intellectuals had begun driving a wedge between Kultur and Zivilisation. Zivilisation came to name the external, mechanical, and, crucially, exportable features of modern life: manners, technology, urban polish, the rational apparatus of the state. It was associated, often pointedly, with the French and British courts: sophisticated, but shallow. Kultur, by contrast, was elevated to name something deeper: the organic, inward, spiritual life of a people, expressed in religion, art, language, and folk tradition, rooted in the specific soil and history of a nation rather than exportable to just anywhere.

There is an irony worth sitting with here, because on the surface this looks like a partial recovery of something like the older, place-bound cultura: a Kultur imagined as growing up out of a particular land and a particular people’s history, rather than floating free as an abstract, universal rank. In one sense, it is exactly that: an attempt to reattach the newly detached noun to a rootedness the Enlightenment’s single evolutionary scale had stripped away. But the recovery is only partial, and the part it leaves out matters enormously. This Kultur is rooted in a Volk’s spirit, not in an actual field being ploughed or an actual flock being fed. It borrows the rhetoric of organic growth and soil without any of the ordinary, physical, animal-tending content that made Cato’s cultura what it was. Later movements found the distinction easy to use. Over the nineteenth century, and with mounting consequence in the twentieth, nationalist writers appropriated and transformed it, setting a people’s rooted, authentic Kultur against a cosmopolitan, “merely civilized” other, and in its most destructive forms the contrast became one of the era’s most dangerous rhetorical weapons (Elias 2000 [1939]). That later history was not contained in the eighteenth-century distinction, and it should not be read back into the philosophers who first drew it, to whom the contrast sounded ordinary and intellectually respectable. What the split does show is the freed noun beginning to do political work, available to be taken up for purposes its first users did not foresee.

IX. Herder Multiplies the Noun, Without Undoing the Split

The most important eighteenth-century response to all of this comes from Johann Gottfried Herder, and it needs to be read carefully, because it is simultaneously the era’s sharpest moral protest against the new hierarchy and, in a way its author never intended, a confirmation of how completely the underlying split had already taken hold.

In his Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind, written across the 1780s (Herder 1784–91), Herder attacks the Enlightenment’s single evolutionary ladder directly. It is arrogant, he argues, to measure every society on earth against the standard of contemporary Paris or London, as though history were marching in one direction toward a single European destination. Herder’s own words on this, in a passage Raymond Williams made famous, are unambiguous: “The very thought of a superior European culture is a blatant insult to the majesty of Nature” (quoted in Williams 1976: 79).

Herder’s solution is a grammatical one, and it is deeply consequential: he pluralises the word. Not Culture, singular and rankable, but cultures: the specific, variable, historically particular cultures of different peoples, different eras, even different classes within a single nation, each carrying its own internal logic and worth, incommensurable with the others rather than arranged beneath or above them. Herder took the metaphor of organic growth Cicero had applied to a single mind and applied it instead to an entire people: a nation, for Herder, unfolds according to its own inner logic the way a plant unfolds according to its own nature, and judging an oak by the standards proper to a rose is simply a category error, however impressive the rose’s standards might be on their own terms. This move is the direct ancestor of cultural relativism, and, later, of the whole modern anthropological habit of speaking of “a culture” the way one might speak of a species or a language, bounded, comparable, describable on its own terms. It is also, at a much longer remove, the ancestor of the ordinary contemporary habit of saying “Japanese culture” or “corporate culture” as though culture came, self-evidently, in discrete, countable units, a habit so natural to a modern reader that it takes some effort to notice it was not always available, and that someone, in a specific decade, had to invent it.

But notice what Herder’s pluralisation does and does not do. Herder was no dualist. His Ideas opens with the earth, its climates and its living forms, and treats human history as continuous with natural history: peoples are shaped by geography and climate, human beings are bodily creatures among other organisms, and language and thought grow out of that organic existence (Herder 1784–91). It would be wrong, then, to say that Herder simply accepted a division between Culture and Nature, and the hard institutional partition between the sciences of nature and the sciences of the human was still a century away. What his pluralisation did not recover was Cato’s sense of cultivation as the ongoing tending of particular fields, bodies and animals. Herder’s unit is the people, and what makes each people distinct is its language, its spirit and its characteristic forms of expression, so that culture becomes something a people has and expresses rather than something a farmer does to a field. Herder is furious about the ranking. He does not restore the practice. This is worth stating plainly because it is easy to read Herder as the great corrective to eighteenth-century arrogance, and in the narrow matter of ranking peoples against one another, he is. But the narrowing of culture away from the tending of body, place, and multispecies relation passes through his intervention largely unrepaired, and the following century would harden it into a partition.

The long afterlife of Herder’s grammatical move is worth tracing forward, briefly, because it did not stop with nineteenth-century anthropology. Every time a contemporary speaker refers to “a culture” as a bounded, describable, comparable unit (in a diversity training seminar, a museum wall label, a government census category) they are working, whether they know it or not, inside the specific conceptual innovation Herder introduced in the 1780s to fight a battle against Enlightenment racial hierarchy. The battle was worth fighting, and Herder’s pluralisation did real, lasting good in that fight. But the form the good took, many bounded cultures rather than one ranked Culture, did nothing to stop “culture”, bounded or not, ranked or not, from later being set over against nature as a separate domain. Two and a half centuries of multicultural, relativist, anti-hierarchical thinking about culture have inherited the bounded unit Herder bequeathed them, together with a boundary against nature that was drawn after him.

That boundary was drawn gradually, and mostly in the nineteenth century. For much of that century the natural sciences still sat inside the philosophical faculties of German universities, and it was only in 1863 that Tübingen created the first separate faculty of natural sciences. In the closing decades of the century philosophers such as Wilhelm Dilthey, Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert set out rival accounts of why the sciences of nature and the sciences of the human spirit, or of culture, required different methods. Anthropology’s founding definition, to which this chapter now turns, arrived in the middle of that process.

X. Tylor’s List, and What Is Missing From It

The next decisive moment is 1871, when the English anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor opens Primitive Culture with a definition that would anchor an entire discipline for the following century: “Culture or Civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Tylor 1871: 1).

Tylor’s definition did real, valuable work. By folding “civilization” into the same word as “culture” and defining it as the entire acquired inheritance of any human group, he made the tools, kinship systems, and religious practices of non-European peoples legitimate objects of serious study, rather than curiosities beneath the dignity of a discipline focused on European achievement. This was, for its moment, a democratising move.

It came at a cost, and the cost is visible in the list itself, provided the list is read carefully. Read Tylor’s definition again: knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, capabilities, habits. Most of the named items lean toward what a later vocabulary would call the symbolic register: classification, meaning, norm, learned content. “Capabilities and habits” is broader, and it would be unfair to read it as excluding practical, bodily and technical activity; Tylor himself wrote at length about tools, fire-making and the arts of life. The difficulty lies elsewhere. Nothing in the definition explicitly identifies the ongoing tending of bodies, places and other species as a foundation of culture. The care and control of animals that fill so much of Cato’s manual, the securing and maintaining of a place, the bodily work of keeping a household alive, can all be fitted under “capabilities and habits”, but the definition does not foreground them and gives no reason to treat them as more than one item among many acquired skills. Over the following decades, as the sciences of nature and of culture separated, these matters were increasingly left to other fields: biology, geography, and husbandry, now the province of agricultural science rather than anything a cultural anthropologist need concern himself with.

The case needs neither etymology nor theory: it can be made simply by reading the founding sentence of academic anthropology and noticing what it leaves in the background. The narrowing that began in the eighteenth century as a change in grammar had, by 1871, shaped the emphasis of a discipline’s founding definition, and that definition remained remarkably stable, whatever its inclusivity, tightly bound to a single evolutionary sequence running from savagery to barbarism to the civilisation Tylor’s own society represented.

Tylor was not working in isolation. He wrote at the height of Victorian social evolutionism, in the intellectual company of Herbert Spencer, who had already begun applying a loosely Darwinian vocabulary, the survival of the fittest, extended from organisms to entire societies, to exactly this kind of ranking, and whose influence on the era’s confidence in a single ladder of human progress was considerable. Tylor also remained, despite his definition’s inclusiveness, a committed evolutionist in this Spencerian mould: contemporary non-European peoples were treated, in his framework, almost as living fossils, representatives of stages Europe had already passed through, and their customs were valuable to the anthropologist precisely as “survivals”, Tylor’s own term for surviving evidence of humanity’s earlier condition. This was more than an academic curiosity. The same vocabulary of stages and survivals fed directly into the administrative apparatus of European empire, which by the last decades of the nineteenth century found it convenient to have a scholarly language, culture, civilisation, developmental stage, for sorting the populations it governed and justifying the terms on which it governed them. Tylor’s generous, inclusive definition of culture was put to work sorting the world’s peoples on a single ladder: precisely the move Herder had already denounced a century earlier, and precisely the move that would take the next generation of anthropologists to dismantle.

XI. Boas, Malinowski, and a Word Stretched to Its Limit

Franz Boas provided the dismantling. Rejecting Tylor’s speculative evolutionary sequence as unsupported by evidence, Boas and his students, Ruth Benedict, Alfred Kroeber, Edward Sapir among them, developed historical particularism: the position that every culture is the unique product of its own specific history and environment, to be understood through patient fieldwork rather than slotted into a universal ladder. Boas’s own early training was in physics and geography rather than anthropology, and he brought to the study of culture an insistence on careful, empirical documentation, measuring skulls, recording languages, mapping the diffusion of specific traits like a particular style of basket-weaving or a particular myth motif from one group to its neighbours, that was meant, quite deliberately, to starve the grand speculative schemes of the previous generation of their evidentiary oxygen. Under Boasian influence, Herder’s pluralised “cultures” became anthropology’s standard unit of analysis, and cultural relativism became something close to a disciplinary creed. Still, notably, the partition itself, cultures as bounded units standing apart from a shared, backgrounded Nature, remained exactly where the nineteenth century had left it.

Bronisław Malinowski, whose fieldwork among the Trobriand Islanders off the coast of New Guinea took place during the First World War and was written up through the 1920s, shifted the emphasis again, this time toward function rather than history. Where Boas’s students had often worked from museum collections, old traders’ accounts, and short expeditions, Malinowski pioneered a method of prolonged, immersive fieldwork: living in a single community for an extended stretch, learning its language, and observing its institutions in operation rather than reconstructing them from fragments. Culture, for Malinowski, and above all in his later theoretical writing (Malinowski 1944), was an integrated system: basic biological needs generate derived “instrumental needs”, such as economic organisation, education, social control, met through interlocking institutions, each custom and practice playing a necessary role in holding the whole arrangement together. This is, among the developments surveyed here, the closest any of them comes to smuggling the body back into the picture, since Malinowski’s whole framework begins from biological need. But notice the structure of the claim: biological need remains a separate, pre-cultural starting point that culture then acts upon and satisfies. Nature proposes; culture disposes. The two terms are still doing exactly the work the preceding two centuries had assigned them, one raw and given, the other the human answer built on top of it, even in the theory that comes closest to reuniting them.

By 1952, the word had absorbed so many uses, across so many rival schools, that Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn could publish a review cataloguing more than one hundred and sixty distinct scholarly definitions of culture (Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952). This is usually told as a story about a discipline’s healthy theoretical ferment. Read against the history traced here, it looks more like a symptom: a word straining to do, badly and in a hundred and sixty different fragments, what a single, unified cultura had once done without anyone needing to define it at all.

XII. A Second Pig, a Century Later

One further mid-century development deserves mention here precisely because it returns, unexpectedly, to the animal this history began with. In the 1960s, the anthropologist Roy Rappaport spent an extended period among the Tsembaga Maring of highland New Guinea, studying a ritual cycle organised around the raising and eventual mass slaughter of domestic pigs. What he found was that the ritual calendar, hedged about with taboo, obligation to ancestors, and elaborate ceremonial timing, was doing real ecological work: regulating pig populations relative to available land, redistributing protein at the moments local ecology most needed it redistributed, and pacing the outbreak and resolution of intergroup hostilities. Rappaport’s account, published as Pigs for the Ancestors (Rappaport 1968), is often credited with founding an entire subfield, ecological anthropology, built on the explicit premise that ritual, belief, and ecological process could not be properly understood apart from each other.

It is difficult not to notice the echo. Two thousand years and a hemisphere away from Cato’s Latium, another set of pigs is again standing at the exact point where a farming people’s practical management of land and animals meets its obligations to ancestors and gods, and an anthropologist arrives to find, once again, that the “religious” and “ecological” halves of the practice are not two separate systems loosely coordinated with each other but a single regulatory activity that only looks like two systems once a modern vocabulary insists on sorting it into “culture” and “nature” before description even begins. Rappaport’s achievement was to resist that sorting long enough to see the mechanism whole. It is one of the very few moments in this entire history, alongside Bourdieu’s habitus and Ingold’s account of skill, where twentieth-century anthropology manages, for a chapter at least, to stand where Cato’s farmer was already standing without needing to be told how.

XIII. The Interpretive and Critical Turn

The second half of the twentieth century subjects the concept to its most sustained scrutiny yet, and several of its central figures deserve to be engaged directly, by name, because each of them is visibly working, whether they say so or not, within boundaries drawn between the eighteenth century and the late nineteenth.

Clifford Geertz, in his 1973 essay on thick description (Geertz 1973), rejects the idea that culture can be studied as a search for functional laws in the manner of a natural science, and proposes instead that culture is a public system of meaning: webs of significance, borrowing Max Weber’s phrase, that a person is suspended in and that an anthropologist must interpret rather than measure. Geertz’s famous illustration, borrowed from the philosopher Gilbert Ryle, turns on the difference between a twitch and a wink: identical as physical movements, entirely different as acts, because one carries a shared, publicly legible intention the other does not. Thick description, for Geertz, is the patient work of recovering that layered intention rather than simply cataloguing behaviour. This is a real advance over any purely behaviourist or trait-list account of culture, and it gives symbolic content the dignity of being studied on its own, public terms rather than reduced to individual psychology. It does not ask why anyone would spin such webs in the first place, and it has nothing at all to say about embodiment, dwelling, or the tending of non-human life, not because Geertz denies these matter, but because by 1973 “culture” had been trained, for two centuries, to mean symbolic content and little else. A wink, notice, is already a purely symbolic event in Geertz’s telling; nobody in this framework is asking what the eye itself, as a trained and disciplined organ, or the room the wink occurs in, are contributing to the act.

Raymond Williams, in his 1958 essay “Culture Is Ordinary” (Williams 1958), makes a different and in some ways more ambitious move: he insists that culture is not confined to elite art and learning but is, instead, both a whole way of life shared in common and the special creative work of the arts, held together rather than ranked against each other. Williams grew up the son of a railway signalman in the Welsh borders, and his essay carries a visible, personal insistence that his own family’s ordinary life, its meanings, its labour, its relationships, deserved exactly the same seriousness as a university’s canon. This democratising instinct is important, and it laid the foundation for an entire field, British Cultural Studies, built on refusing to treat popular and working-class life as beneath analysis. Williams is trying, within the vocabulary available to him, to recover something like the unity the word once had without elite gatekeeping attached to it, and his own later scholarship on the word’s history, tracing exactly the transformation this chapter has been tracing, shows he understood better than almost anyone how much had been lost in the process. But “whole way of life,” in Williams’s usage, still means shared meanings, practices, and directions, the register of multisymbolization rather than the ongoing physical tending of bodies, places, and animal relations that once anchored the term. Williams could see the amputation with unusual clarity. He did not, in the end, propose to reverse it.

Pierre Bourdieu, writing on habitus and cultural capital in the 1970s and 1980s, does something distinct enough from the others to deserve its own note. His concept of habitus (Bourdieu 1977, 1984) (durable, embodied dispositions, formed by material conditions and reproduced through bodily comportment, taste, and bearing) is one of the very few moments in this entire two-hundred-year stretch where something like embodiment gets pulled back into serious cultural theory at all. Habitus, for Bourdieu, is not simply a set of beliefs a person holds about how to sit, eat, or speak; it is a set of bodily dispositions, installed early and mostly beneath conscious awareness, that make a person’s class position visible in the smallest movements of the body itself, from the pace of an unhurried walk to the way cutlery is held. Rather than “biological need” in Malinowski’s sense, standing outside culture and awaiting satisfaction, habitus is the body itself, shaped by class position and symbolic hierarchy simultaneously, carrying culture in its posture and its instincts. Bourdieu does not have dwelling or multispecies relation in his frame, and cultural capital, in his account, functions primarily as a mechanism of social stratification rather than a mode of tending anything. But of everyone surveyed here since Cicero, Bourdieu’s habitus comes closest to putting a body back where the preceding centuries had pushed one to the margins.

Stuart Hall (1997) shifts the frame again, from culture as a possession or a system to culture as an active, contested process of representation: the ongoing work by which language and signs produce meaning, rather than simply reflecting a reality that exists independently of them. For Hall, culture is not secondary to power; it is one of the primary sites where power is exercised, contested, and negotiated, particularly around race, gender, and national identity, and the question of who gets to fix a meaning, who counts as “British,” what an image of a Black body is taken to signify, which version of a nation’s history becomes common sense, is never innocent or settled once and for all. Hall’s framework gives the interpretive turn a political edge Geertz’s largely lacks, insisting that webs of significance are fought over, not simply inhabited. And Edward Said, in Culture and Imperialism (Said 1993), insists that the cultural achievements of the European metropolis cannot be separated from the history of empire that funded and legitimated them: the novels, the museums, and the universities of the colonising power are not a separate, innocent sphere sitting politely alongside its conquests, but are woven into the same project, and that the power to narrate, to decide whose story counts as history and whose counts as background, is itself a form of domination. Both Hall and Said are indispensable correctives to any account of culture that imagines it as an innocent, self-contained domain floating above material and political life. Neither of them, however, reopens the question this history has been building toward: not who controls the meanings, but why “culture” stopped including the body, the place, and the animal in the first place. Power, for both of them, operates entirely within the symbolic register that culture had been left holding: a crucial and necessary analysis of that register, but not a return to what stood outside it.

XIV. What Actually Happened, Stated Plainly

Step back from the individual figures and the shape of the whole history becomes visible in a way none of the individual accounts, taken on its own, quite states.

For roughly eighteen hundred years, from Cato’s field to a seventeenth-century Englishman’s talk of “the culture of the mind,” the word never floated free of an object, and that object was always one of three things, which can be named with the terms introduced in Chapter 1: a place under tending (dwelling), a body or soul under tending (embodiment), or a relation of honour and reverence extended toward kin, community, or the divine (being-with, in the fullest sense: a bond, not merely an idea about a bond). Durable material practice (the plough, the walked boundary, the animal itself) and shared symbolic recognition (the prayer, the invoked names, the socially recognised rite) operated together in every instance, because cultura had never been asked to choose between them.

Between the middle of the eighteenth century and the end of the nineteenth, the word did more than become abstract. It underwent two separations, and reading Tylor’s list against Cato’s rite makes both of them visible. Embodiment, dwelling, and multispecies being-with were increasingly assigned to the opposing category of Nature: a domain of biology and geography, no longer imagined as continuous with anything a cultural discipline needed to study. And durable material practice, the other half of what cultura had always involved alongside symbolic recognition, went a different direction: it became the province of the second new term, Civilisation (infrastructure, technology, the mechanical and exportable), leaving “Culture” narrowed, with symbolic content as its centre of gravity, namely belief, art, meaning, custom, the items that dominate Tylor’s list.

It is worth being precise about where each piece of Cato’s original, undivided practice actually went, because the three-way sorting is cleaner than it might first appear. The animals, bred, fed, doctored, led around the boundary, became, in the new vocabulary, purely natural: livestock, biology, the province of veterinary science and zoology, nothing a student of culture would need to know. The walked boundary, the built farmstead, the plough itself, durable material form applied to a place, became civilisation: infrastructure, technique, the exportable and improvable apparatus of a developed society, tracked by economic historians rather than anthropologists of meaning. And the prayer, the invoked names of Janus, Jupiter, and Mars, the recognised form of words, the shared understanding of what the rite accomplished, became, at last, culture in the new, narrow sense: belief, symbol, custom. One indivisible act, performed by one farmer on one afternoon, walks out of those two centuries having been quietly filed in three different administrative drawers, each now assigned to a different discipline, none of which is required to talk to the others.

Of the three pieces, the animals fare worst, and it is worth dwelling on that asymmetry for a moment before moving on. Something of embodiment survives even in Tylor’s narrowed list, if only obliquely, in the reference to “capabilities and habits acquired by man”: a body, however thinly conceived, is at least implied by the idea of an acquired habit. Something of dwelling survives too, at least as a backdrop, in the anthropological convention of naming a culture after the territory its people occupy. But the animals disappear from the word almost without a trace. Nothing in Tylor’s definition, or in Geertz’s webs, or in Williams’s whole way of life, gestures toward the shepherds and the flocks that stand in the same sentence as the harvest in Cato’s own prayer. The multispecies relation that filled a substantial fraction of Cato’s manual, and that anchors the suovetaurilia itself, an animal life offered on behalf of a human household’s health, became, over the following two centuries, close to invisible to the word that used to name it. It did not become “nature” in the sense of being reassigned to a rival discipline that took it seriously. It became, more quietly, nobody’s business at all.

This double separation explains something in the subsequent history of ideas that is usually treated as a separate, much older philosophical story: the long argument, running through the twentieth century, between materialist accounts of culture (Marx, and later Leslie White and Marvin Harris, grounding culture in economic and technological conditions) and symbolic or idealist accounts (Geertz being the clearest case, treating culture as meaning irreducible to material cause). This argument is usually presented as a perennial dispute reaching back through the whole of Western philosophy. Read against the history traced here, it looks like something narrower and more dateable: the predictable consequence of severing multimateriality and multisymbolization from each other between the eighteenth century and the twentieth, after which two centuries of social theorists inherited the pieces separately and, understandably, spent the following hundred years arguing about which piece deserved to be called primary, without either side, for the most part, noticing that the argument only exists because the pieces were split apart in the first place, having previously done their work as a single, unquestioned pair in the older, undivided cultura.

Seen this way, the handful of twentieth-century moments that reached back toward embodiment (Bourdieu’s habitus, Rappaport’s insistence that a highland New Guinea pig cycle could not be split into religious belief on one side and ecological regulation on the other, or Tim Ingold’s insistence, a generation later (Ingold 2000), that what gets called cultural variation is really variation in trained, embodied skill, learned anew through practice rather than transmitted as content) are less isolated theoretical innovations arriving from nowhere than the first, partial attempts, after two hundred years, to smuggle one of the amputated mediations back across a border most of the discipline had stopped noticing was even there. Ingold restores embodiment to something close to Cato’s sense of tending, skilled and practical, without ever quite naming what had been done to it over the preceding two centuries, or noticing that dwelling and being-with needed exactly the same rescue.

XV. The Rite, Again

Return, at the end of this, to the pig, the lamb, and the calf, led around the boundary of a field two thousand years before anyone thought to ask whether nature and culture were the same kind of thing or two different ones. Far from being confused, or naively failing to distinguish domains that a later, more sophisticated age would correctly separate, Cato’s farmer was doing, without needing a word for it, exactly what this whole history has been circling: tending, maintaining and controlling bodies, a place, and a set of relations, with household, with enslaved workers, with flock, with god, as a single undertaking whose costs fell very unevenly, using material practice and symbolic recognition together because neither one, alone, had ever been enough.

It is worth being honest about what recovering this history does and does not accomplish. It does not prove that the split was a mistake in any simple sense, or that a modern reader ought to feel nostalgic for a Roman farmer’s cosmology, complete with its household gods and its enslaved labour. Historical particularism was right to insist that societies cannot be ranked on Tylor’s ladder, and the interpretive and critical turns surveyed here were right to insist that meaning, representation, and power cannot be waved away in favour of a return to soil and livestock. What recovering the word’s history does accomplish is narrower and, I think, more useful: it shows that the modern intuition treating “culture” and “nature” as two different kinds of thing, requiring two different disciplines and two different vocabularies, records a decision rather than a discovery about the structure of reality: a decision made at an identifiable moment, by identifiable people, for identifiable reasons, and one so successful that it has been mistaken, ever since, for a fact.

The word for what Cato’s farmer was doing is still, technically, the word we use. What changed, somewhere in the middle of the eighteenth century, was the word’s memory of what it had always meant, rather than the world itself. A history like this one cannot restore that memory by itself. What it can do is make the amnesia visible, which is the necessary first step before anyone can decide whether two hundred and fifty years of forgetting is a bargain worth keeping, or a debt that has simply never been called in.

Questions to Take Further

Cato’s purification rite brings together soil, animals, a household, shepherds and gods in one act, and it also ends three animals’ lives and depends on enslaved labour. What does that suggest about the difference between coordination and care? Herder is described as “furious about the ranking” while not restoring “the practice”. In your own words, what is the difference between pluralising cultures and recovering cultivation as something done to a field? Which of the twentieth-century thinkers discussed here comes closest, in your view, to undoing the partition between culture and nature, and what does each still leave out?

Chapter 3: Culture and Comparison How Anthropology Made Cultures Comparable, and at What Cost

I. ‘Let Us Compare These Two Cultures’

“Anthropologists compare different cultures to each other.” The instruction sounds so straightforward that no one thinks to question it, and that is exactly the problem. What is being compared? Where do the boundaries of a culture come from? Why should culture be the kind of thing that comes in bounded units at all, English culture, Scottish culture, student culture, Bengali culture, such that one unit can be set beside another and measured against it? And, hardest of all, in what respect are the two units supposed to be compared, since nothing about the raw fact of two populations existing tells anyone which of their differences matter and which of their similarities can safely be ignored?

Far from being a pedantic quibble, this is close to the single most important methodological question a comparative discipline can ask, because a comparison is never simply given by its objects. Consider Edinburgh and Kolkata, two cities separated by several thousand miles and, on paper, almost everything else. Kinship arrangements differ. Architecture differs. Legal systems differ. The way people address each other, argue with each other and mark status differs. A cross-cultural comparison built on these differences writes itself. But an enormous amount is also shared. People in both cities sleep. They eat. They grow older. They quarrel with their families. They raise children, worry about money, and fall ill. None of this shared material typically enters a comparison at all, because it is not strange enough to be noticed, whatever its relevance. The moment something is universally shared, it tends to drop out of anthropological attention, not because it stops mattering but because there is, on the face of it, nothing to explain: everybody sleeps, so why would an anthropologist bother with sleep? Chapter 1 followed exactly this reasoning to the marginal place of sleep in a century of anthropological writing.

This already smuggles in a serious bias before any fieldwork has begun. If a discipline only compares what strikes it as strikingly different, it has quietly decided, in advance of any inquiry, that difference is where the interesting material lives and that similarity is background noise. The choice of what counts as comparable is made before the comparison starts, and it is worth asking where that choice actually came from. Anthropology did not stumble upon a natural world already divided into discrete, comparable cultures and then work out how to line them up against each other. The very idea of a culture, as a free-standing, bounded thing capable of being compared to another such thing, has its own history, and that history is considerably shorter and stranger than the confidence with which the word gets used today.

Chapter 2 followed that history from Cato’s field to Tylor’s complex whole and asked what the word lost along the way: the bodies, places and animals that the eighteenth century reassigned to nature. This chapter asks a different question of the same history, namely what it did to comparison, because the history of the word explains a great deal about what is wrong, and what can be salvaged, in the ordinary anthropological instinct to compare.

It is worth being clear from the outset that the target here is not comparison itself. Comparison is one of the oldest and most productive tools any discipline has, and nothing that follows argues for abandoning it. The target is a specific, usually invisible step that happens before any actual comparison begins: the selection of a respect, a dimension along which two or more cases are to be set beside each other. Two societies, or two people, or two texts, resemble and differ from each other in an unlimited number of ways, and a bare instruction to compare them says nothing at all about which of those ways should organise the inquiry. Whenever that selection is made silently, by habit or by inherited convention rather than by an argument that could in principle be examined and rejected, the comparison that follows inherits a bias it can never see from the inside, because the very terms in which the two cases are being read off against each other were fixed before the reading began.

II. From an Activity to a Possession That Can Be Ranked

The Latin cultura, as Chapter 2 showed, always required an object. It was the cultura of a field for Cato and, in Cicero’s phrase cultura animi, the cultivation of a mind, and for some eighteen hundred years the word kept that grammatical shape. Somewhere in the eighteenth century the object fell away, and a person or a society could simply have culture, in the way one has property. For the question of comparison, the decisive consequence is that culture began to behave like a scalar quantity, something a person or a nation can possess in a greater or a lesser degree.

It is worth pausing on how much changed in this shift, because it is easy to read past it. Cultura could never have organised a ranking of peoples, because it never named the kind of free-standing thing a ranking needs. One cannot meaningfully ask whether one farmer has more cultura than another; one can only ask whether a field is being tended well or badly, according to some further standard of what a well-tended field looks like. Once culture becomes a possession, ranking becomes close to unavoidable, since a scalar quantity practically demands the question of who has more and who has less. Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century writers increasingly speak of cultured peoples and their opposite, and early anthropology inherited this vocabulary wholesale, dividing humanity into the cultured and the primitive as though this were simply an observation about how much of a substance called culture different populations happened to possess, with the observer’s own society reliably placed at the top of the scale it had just invented. The invention of the free-standing noun and the emergence of a colonial hierarchy of peoples are therefore closely bound together, because the second follows from the grammar of the first.

III. Herder and the Question Relativism Leaves Open

Herder’s response to the ranking, as Chapter 2 described, was to pluralise the noun. Instead of one culture, measured out along a single scale from primitive to civilised, there are cultures, plural, each with its own internal logic, its own coherence, its own reasons for being exactly as it is, and no neutral yardstick standing outside them on which Edinburgh culture could be measured against Bengali culture. Herder’s second legacy, and the one that matters most for comparison, is relativism, and it is worth stating the position in its strongest form before asking what it leaves untouched.

Relativism says that a practice should be judged by the standards internal to the people who hold it, not by the standards of an outside observer who happens to find it strange or objectionable. The position is put under real strain by cases where a practice that some members of a community endorse looks, to an outside observer and often to other members of the same community, like a serious harm. Female genital cutting is the example that recurs in these discussions because it forces the question in its sharpest form. Communities that practise it are rarely of one mind: women and girls, as well as men, disagree among themselves about it, and some of the most sustained opposition comes from within. The strong version of relativism nevertheless treats the community as speaking with one voice, and answers that the outside observer has no standing to object: that is their world, this is ours, and passing judgement across that boundary is itself a form of arrogance. Most people find that answer very hard to hold once a specific, serious harm is in front of them. It helps to distinguish two positions that are often run together. Methodological relativism asks the anthropologist to understand a practice in its own setting before judging it, and to take seriously the reasons people give for it; it is a rule of inquiry. Moral relativism in the strong sense goes further, and denies that anyone outside has grounds to criticise or to intervene. The first is indispensable to the discipline. The second asks something few people are willing to give, and it silences the critics inside a community as thoroughly as those outside it.

The interest of this chapter is not to relitigate that debate, which anthropology has argued over for a century without resolving it, but to notice something relativism leaves completely untouched. Herder’s contribution is to block one kind of question, whose culture is better, while leaving a different and, on the argument here, more important question entirely unexamined: out of everything two populations could conceivably be compared on, why this respect and not another. That second question survives every version of the relativist settlement, and it becomes visible only once the discipline had built the machinery for comparison in earnest.

IV. Tylor’s Compartments and the Questionnaire

Chapter 2 read Tylor’s 1871 definition for what it leaves out, namely the tending of bodies, places and animals. Read for its shape, the definition does something else, with enormous downstream consequences. The phrase that deserves attention is “complex whole”. Tylor is turning culture into a bounded container with clearly identifiable internal compartments: here is knowledge, here is law, here is custom, each a sub-region within the larger, bounded whole.

Once culture has this shape, a further method becomes available that was not available before. One can compare two cultures as wholes, or, more usefully, one can decompose each whole into its named compartments and compare compartment against compartment: the law of one society against the law of another, the kinship system of one against the kinship system of another. This decomposition is precisely what makes systematic, institutionalised comparison possible, and it was formalised only three years after Primitive Culture appeared, in a manual called Notes and Queries on Anthropology, first issued in 1874 by a committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science on which Tylor himself sat (Notes and Queries 1874). Revised through many editions, the later ones under the Royal Anthropological Institute, it was circulated to missionaries, colonial administrators and travellers headed to unfamiliar parts of the world, and it remained in use well into the twentieth century. That the author of the founding definition also helped to write the founding questionnaire is worth keeping in mind, because it shows how quickly the shape of the definition became the shape of the inquiry.

The manual was never only a grid of social categories. Its opening sections dealt with what it called the constitution of man, with bodily measurement, physical characteristics and pathology, and its later sections with culture, from tools, arts and other material objects to kinship, government and religion. Bodies and things were far from discarded; they were sorted, and the sorting is itself instructive. The living body appeared as an object of measurement in one part of the notebook, separated from customs, beliefs and institutions in another, so that the questionnaire built the division between a physical and a cultural anthropology into the very form of the observer’s record, and with it a working version of the partition between nature and culture traced in Chapter 2.

Without such a guide, an observer’s report on an unfamiliar society was largely whatever struck that particular observer as interesting or strange, an unsystematic and person-dependent record. Notes and Queries changes this by telling the traveller in advance what to look for: always record kinship, always record political organisation, always record systems of exchange, and so on through a long list of headings. The stated purpose, and a real achievement, was to remove the idiosyncrasy of the individual observer and put ethnographic reporting on a more systematic, comparable footing.

The achievement, however, came with a cost that went almost entirely unexamined at the time. The list of headings was decided in advance, by the discipline, in London, before any particular fieldworker ever set foot among any particular people. Whatever the traveller was told to look for was, by construction, being imposed on every society visited, whether or not those categories carried anything like the same weight for the people actually living there. The bias that Notes and Queries proudly claimed to have removed, the personal idiosyncrasy of the individual observer, was real enough. But a second and much less visible bias took its place: the assumption, built into the manual itself, that kinship, law, religion and exchange were the universally relevant categories worth asking about everywhere, an assumption nobody had actually tested and that the manual’s own existence made it very easy never to notice needed testing.

It is worth noticing how durable this arrangement turned out to be. Long after Notes and Queries itself stopped being handed to travellers, its underlying logic survived in the standard chapter headings of introductory textbooks, in the standard sections of an ethnographic monograph, and in the standard fields of a university curriculum: kinship gets a chapter, religion gets a chapter, economy gets a chapter, politics gets a chapter. None of this is illegitimate in itself, and a great deal of excellent scholarship has been produced within exactly this division of labour. The point is only that the division was inherited rather than derived anew from what any particular people studied turned out to care about, and an inherited division has a way of feeling like a discovery about the world rather than a decision made, for entirely understandable administrative reasons, by a committee working in London in 1874.

V. Boas and the Line He Did Not Cross

Franz Boas, whose dismantling of Tylor’s evolutionary ladder Chapter 2 described, took Herder’s insight that cultures are plural, and that no one culture is straightforwardly superior to another, and turned it into the working doctrine of an entire national tradition of anthropology. His own words state the position without hedging: the task of the ethnological museum, he wrote, is to spread the fact “that civilization is not something absolute, but that it is relative, and that our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes” (Boas 1887: 589). This was, at the time, a direct assault on the dominant anthropological orthodoxy, which held to a confident evolutionary ranking of human populations with white Europeans placed, unsurprisingly, at the summit and everyone else arranged beneath them according to how closely their institutions were judged to resemble European ones. Boas’s insistence that this ranking was ethnocentric, unscientific and morally indefensible is among the lasting achievements of the discipline, and it has not been seriously questioned since.

But notice exactly what this achievement does and does not accomplish. It dismantles ranking: the claim that one people’s institutions can be placed above another’s on some universal scale of civilisational advancement. It does nothing at all to touch a different and prior question, namely why the discipline should be comparing kinship, religion, law and exchange across societies in the first place, rather than some other set of concerns entirely. Relativism answers the question by whose standards should a practice be judged. It has no answer at all to the question why compare on this particular dimension rather than any of the countless others available. These are different questions, and it is entirely possible to be a scrupulous, committed relativist, refusing to rank any society above another, while still inheriting, without ever examining it, an entire grid of supposedly universal comparative categories that nobody in the society being studied necessarily thinks of as the natural joints of their own social life.

This is the gap that survives Boas’s revolution fully intact, and it is worth naming clearly because the history just told makes it easy to see why it survived. Ranking was the visible, politically explosive problem, the one that provoked outrage and demanded a response. Selection, the prior question of which dimensions of a life are worth comparing at all, produced no such outrage, because it does not look like a moral failing in the way ranking does. It looks like ordinary method. And ordinary method, unlike ranking, felt as though it did not need defending, so nobody, for the better part of a century, thought seriously about defending it, or attacking it either.

Boas’s institutional legacy compounded this. Because he trained an entire generation of American anthropologists directly, and because his students went on to train the generation after them, the doctrine of cultural relativism became something closer to a professional reflex than an argued position: the kind of thing a student absorbed early in training and rarely needed to defend again, because everyone in the room already agreed with it. That kind of unanimity is a real achievement when the position in question, the rejection of racial and civilisational ranking, deserves to be unanimous. But unanimity of this kind has a cost of its own. A position nobody in the room disputes tends to stop being examined, and the question relativism never answered, why compare on these dimensions rather than others, had the bad luck of resembling the question relativism did answer closely enough that generations of students absorbed the second as though it had settled the first.

VI. When Similarity Catches the Attention: Martin’s Egg and Sperm

Chapter 1 described the attentional profile of a discipline trained to notice difference. The strange, the symbolically loaded, the politically contested and the story that can be told and retold reliably catch the eye, and similarity tends to sink into an unremarked background: if something is shared by everyone everywhere, there seems to be nothing left for an anthropologist to say about it.

There is, however, a well-known case that inverts this pattern entirely, and it repays close attention precisely because the inversion is what makes the argument work. Emily Martin’s essay on the egg and the sperm (Martin 1991) looks at how standard medical and biology textbooks describe human conception, and it draws its evidence not from fieldwork or interviews but from published scientific writing, a reminder that ethnographic method is broader than long-term participant observation and can be turned on texts as readily as on villages. What Martin notices is a strikingly consistent gendered narrative running through this supposedly neutral scientific literature: the egg is described as large, passive and essentially inert, waiting to be acted upon, while the sperm is described as small, active, competitive, aggressively pursuing its target. The biology does not require this narrative in the least; nothing about the relative size or motility of the two cells demands that one be cast as a hero and the other as a prize. Martin’s real discovery is not a difference between two cultures but a similarity: a resemblance between the supposedly objective language of science and the entirely ordinary, unremarkable sexism of popular language about men and women. The scientific text turns out to be far more soaked in ordinary cultural assumption than its own claim to neutrality would suggest.

There is a further step available here that goes beyond what Martin’s own essay draws out explicitly, and it concerns exactly where in the process this gendering enters. Turning a biological process into a scientific description requires, at some point, translating it into a system of symbols: written language, certainly, but also photographs, diagrams, mathematical notation, chemical formulae, statistical tables. Modern science relies overwhelmingly on these last few, on mathematics, chemistry and quantitative graphing, and it does so for a specific reason: none of these notations carry an inherited gender bias the way ordinary language does. Nobody examining an equation, a graph or a chemical formula can locate within it a preference for one sex over the other; the notation simply will not support the kind of narrative Martin found running through the surrounding prose. Even the diagrams and micrographs in the textbooks Martin studied are, for the most part, free of the bias she is diagnosing. The bias enters specifically where the account has to leave notation behind and be retold in ordinary language, because ordinary language cannot be scrubbed clean of the history of the society that produced it. Ordinary words carry with them, whether a given speaker wants them to or not, the sediment of every inequality, gendered, political and otherwise, that has shaped the society in which those words have circulated.

A small, almost domestic example makes the same point without any of the charge that surrounds conception and gender. A great many societies, as Robert Hertz (1960 [1909]) showed more than a century ago, treat the right hand as good, trustworthy and correct, and the left hand as suspect, unlucky, or worse, a moral asymmetry with no basis whatsoever in any real difference between the two hands. Nobody actually believes, on reflection, that a right hand is morally superior to a left one. The asymmetry is a fact about what happens the moment a society starts talking about hands, rather than about hands themselves, since ordinary language, once it exists, cannot help encoding the inherited values of the people who speak it. Rather than unusually sexist scientists smuggling their private prejudices into their research, Martin’s textbook authors are doing something close to unavoidable: writing, in ordinary language, about a process that ordinary language has never had a neutral way of describing.

VII. Two Ways of Doing Anthropology

All of this history points toward a real fork in how the discipline can proceed, and it is worth stating the fork plainly, because most anthropological training presents only one branch of it as though it were the whole of the discipline. One way of doing anthropology walks into a new field site already equipped with the categories the discipline has inherited, kinship, law, religion, exchange, political organisation, and sets out to describe and compare each of them systematically across societies. This is the Tylor and Notes and Queries inheritance, and it remains, in various updated forms, the default method taught to most students.

The other way of doing anthropology walks into the same field site with a much simpler and much harder question: what matters most to the people here? Not what the discipline has decided in advance is worth asking about, but what the people being studied themselves treat as consequential, worth arguing over, worth organising a life around. On this second approach, the anthropologist does not arrive with the comparative grid already fixed. The grid, if there is to be one, is built afterward, out of what turns out to matter to the people actually studied, rather than imposed on them beforehand out of what happens to matter to the discipline, or to the observer’s own society.

Far from being a minor variation on the first method, this relocates the entire authority over what counts as relevant, from the anthropologist and the discipline behind her to the people being studied. And it is, on the argument of this chapter, both the harder method to practise and the one that gives anthropology whatever real claim it has to being a distinctive way of knowing other people, rather than merely a more polite version of a colonial questionnaire.

VIII. Malinowski’s Actual Point

The clearest statement of this second method was made, and largely misunderstood, at the very founding of British social anthropology. Bronisław Malinowski’s Argonauts of the Western Pacific, still among the most cited books the discipline has ever produced, contains what is probably its single most quoted sentence: the ethnographer’s final goal “is, briefly, to grasp the native’s point of view, his relation to life, to realise his vision of his world” (Malinowski 1922: 25). For most of the twentieth century this line was read as a statement about the problem of representation: how can an outsider write about another people fairly, without condescension, without imposing categories that distort what they are trying to describe. That is a real and serious problem, and anthropology has spent a great deal of energy on it.

But it is not, on a careful reading, what Malinowski’s sentence is actually about. The line continues, in terms that are quoted far less often than the famous half about grasping the native’s point of view: “We have to study man, and we must study what concerns him most intimately, that is, the hold which life has on him” (Malinowski 1922: 25). This is a claim about where the anthropologist’s attention should be directed in the first place, rather than about how to represent someone accurately, and it says: not toward the categories the discipline already possesses, but toward whatever it is that most grips the life of the person being studied. Malinowski’s programme, read this way, asks less “do not misrepresent people” than “find out what is actually at stake for them”, and build the inquiry around that, rather than around whatever the observer arrived already expecting to find.

This is a substantial claim about the discipline’s own history: that its founding text already contained, in more or less complete form, the alternative to the categorise-and-compare method that came to dominate the field’s actual practice for most of the following century. Malinowski said it first, and in some ways said it best, and generations of anthropologists trained in his own tradition proceeded largely as though he had said something much narrower, a point about fair representation, rather than the much more radical methodological instruction it actually is: let the people you are studying tell you what is at stake, and do not walk in having already decided.

The narrower reading is not hard to understand, and it is worth asking why it took hold so completely. Representation is a problem a discipline can teach directly: it can be turned into a set of writing conventions, a set of cautions about voice and authority, a checklist for what not to say and how not to say it, and generations of students have been trained accordingly, usually to real and lasting benefit. Finding out what is actually at stake for another person is not the kind of thing that can be taught as a checklist at all, since it cannot be specified in advance without contradicting itself; a method that tells a student in advance what she will find important has already failed at the one thing it claims to teach. A discipline under professional pressure to produce a teachable curriculum will, understandably enough, gravitate toward the version of Malinowski’s sentence that can be taught, and let the harder, less teachable version quietly recede into the background of the very quotation everyone kept citing.

IX. Shared Stakes and a Stomach in Kolkata

If the comparative grid is not to be supplied in advance by the discipline, where does the ground for comparison come from at all? The answer offered here is that it comes from what is shared, prior to any particular society’s own elaboration of it. Every human population needs to sleep safely. Every human population needs to eat. Every human population raises children, and every human population must somehow manage its own vulnerability, its own risk of illness and harm. These shared stakes are what make it possible to understand another human being at all, across whatever surface differences separate two populations, and they are a far more solid ground for comparison than any inherited list of institutional categories, because they answer to something every human life actually requires rather than to a set of headings a nineteenth-century committee happened to settle on.

A caution belongs here, because it would be easy to replace one prescribed grid with another. Shared stakes are a starting point for inquiry, and they do not settle in advance which question matters most in a particular place. That every population must sleep, eat and raise children says nothing about whether sleep, food or children are where the people in a given setting locate what is most at stake for them, or how they put it into words. The stakes offer ground on which comparison can stand; what is built on that ground still has to be found out in the field. Chapter 4 returns to this point when it asks whether the framework used in this book imposes its own categories on what it describes.

My own fieldwork in Kolkata, mentioned in Chapter 1, makes the method concrete. The fieldwork for my book Eating Drugs was originally designed around a specific question: how do people in Kolkata understand and talk about environmental and air pollution (Ecks 2014). That was the proposal, and the first weeks of interviews in local clinics followed it faithfully, asking people directly how air pollution affected their health. The answers came back readily enough: air pollution blackens the lungs, everybody knows this. But they kept sliding, unprompted and repeatedly, toward a different organ entirely. It’s my stomach, people said. The soot and dust go into my stomach. That is what upsets my digestion. After roughly two weeks of hearing this same redirection from person after person, the honest response was not to keep steering the conversation back toward the original research question, but to notice that nobody being interviewed seemed to think pollution, as such, was the interesting or urgent topic, while almost everybody had a great deal to say, unprompted, about digestion and the stomach. The project changed accordingly, and the resulting book was about digestion and pharmaceutical use rather than about the environmental attitudes it had originally set out to document.

This is a small but exact illustration of the method Malinowski’s line actually recommends. The original research question was not wrong to ask; it simply was not what mattered most intimately to the people being asked, and the discipline’s own instinct, letting oneself be surprised and redirected by what turns out to be at stake for the people studied rather than defending a proposal written in advance, is close to unique among the social sciences. A structured quantitative survey, whatever its other virtues, does not permit this kind of redirection: a respondent presented with a fixed questionnaire about pollution has no space within the instrument itself to say that pollution is not actually what concerns them, and that something else, their stomach, their family, their debts, is where their attention and anxiety actually live. Long-term, open-ended fieldwork is one of the few methods in the social sciences built to let exactly that kind of redirection happen, and to treat it as data rather than as noise.

None of this was comfortable at the time it was happening. A funded research proposal describes a project to a funding body, and a funding body reasonably expects the project it paid for. Abandoning a proposal on the strength of what informants keep saying unprompted, rather than what they were asked, requires a kind of institutional and personal confidence that fieldwork training does not always supply, and it is worth being honest that the discipline’s own incentives sometimes pull in the opposite direction, toward finishing the project that was proposed rather than the project the people being studied kept insisting on. The redirection described here worked out, and produced a more interesting and more truthful book than the original proposal would have. It could equally have produced two years of fieldwork with no clear argument at all, and the difference between the two outcomes is not something a method can guarantee in advance. What the method can guarantee is only that the question actually being answered will be one the people studied recognise as their own, rather than one imported for their convenience by someone who had already decided what to ask before arriving.

X. When Culture Really Is the Stake

None of this amounts to a claim that culture, or cultural identity, never matters to the people anthropology studies. Sometimes it plainly does, and sometimes it matters enormously. Nationalism is an obvious case: the conviction that one’s own people are fundamentally distinct from a neighbouring people, and that this distinctness justifies a particular political arrangement, is precisely a claim that culture is at stake, made with total sincerity by the people making it. Religious and communal identity supplies other, closer-to-home examples: in parts of the United Kingdom today, whether a family comes from a Protestant or a Catholic background can still carry real social weight, in exactly the way a cultural or communal difference is supposed to.

The point being made here concerns method, and the order in which things should be established, rather than any denial that such differences are real and consequential. If cultural identity turns out to be a vital stake for the people an anthropologist is studying, that is a discovery to be made in the field, through attending to what the people themselves treat as mattering, not a premise the anthropologist is entitled to import before any fieldwork has begun. The error this chapter has been tracing throughout lies in the assumption, built into the discipline from Tylor’s complex whole through Notes and Queries and beyond, that culture and its standard sub-categories must always matter, everywhere, simply because the discipline has a longstanding habit of assuming so, and never in the claim that culture sometimes matters. Let the answer be supplied by the people being studied, and treat it as a live question rather than a foregone conclusion.

XI. Abstraction Cannot Be Avoided, Only Done Honestly

None of this is an argument against abstraction as such, and it would be a mistake to read it that way. Even Malinowski, having spent years accumulating extraordinarily rich, situated detail about Trobriand life, still needed, at some point, to say that a given transaction was an instance of ceremonial exchange as opposed to ordinary economic exchange. Some abstraction of this kind is unavoidable the moment an ethnographer tries to say anything general at all, and there is nothing wrong with abstraction in itself. The aim is to notice how large an abstraction is being made from the rich particularity of a life, and to make it honestly rather than by default.

Culture itself, on this reckoning, is one of the largest and least examined abstractions the discipline possesses. It compresses an enormous, heterogeneous range of activity, tending a field, cultivating a mind, raising a child, worshipping a god, organising a household, into a single bounded noun, and it does so so smoothly, and so early in most people’s training, that the compression itself becomes invisible. The corrective is not to stop using the word, which would be neither possible nor especially useful, but to remember what kind of word it originally was, and what work the noun form has been quietly doing ever since it broke free of its object in the eighteenth century.

XII. Conclusion: The Instinct the Discipline Already Had

Cultures do not need to be treated as bounded, comparable wholes, because they were never bounded, integrated wholes to begin with. What actually exists, underneath the noun, is cultivation: an ongoing, relational activity, directed at a field, a mind, a household, a body, that only later, and only partially, hardened into the free-standing thing the discipline learned to compare. Recovering that older sense of the word does not require abandoning comparison. It requires comparing something else: not cultures as pre-given wholes, but the different ways in which different populations tend to the stakes they actually share, sleep, food, safety, the raising of children, the management of illness and risk.

The striking thing, on reflection, is how old this alternative actually is within the discipline’s own history. Far from being a recent correction imported from outside anthropology, it is fully present, plainly stated, in the founding text of British social anthropology, in Malinowski’s own insistence that the task is to find out what holds a person’s life most intimately, not to arrive already knowing. Several generations of anthropologists trained in the very tradition Malinowski founded proceeded as though he had said something much narrower and much safer than he did, and only slowly, and only partially, has the discipline returned to what was there from the beginning. The founding instinct of the discipline was, in this sense, already the right one. At its best, anthropology studies neither cultures as bounded possessions nor an inventory of their compartments, but whatever turns out to matter most to the people willing to let an outsider spend long enough among them to find out.

Questions to Take Further

Choose two places you know well. List three dimensions on which they would normally be compared, and three on which they almost never are. What does each list make visible? Why might the representational reading of Malinowski’s famous sentence have been easier to teach than the methodological one? Has a question you were asked, in a survey, an interview or a form, ever been the wrong question for you? What would the right one have been?

Chapter 4: What Is a Person? Selfhood, Recognition, Comparison, and the Power to Classify

I. A Lecture That Changed Its Question

The lecture on personhood in this course opens with a vote. When I last gave it, the screen showed nine candidates: a newborn baby, a foetus at twenty-three weeks, an eleven-year-old in Edinburgh, a man in a state of unresponsive wakefulness (formerly termed a persistent vegetative state), a company, a river in New Zealand, a Hindu deity, an elephant in the Bronx Zoo, and a chatbot. A theatre of first-year anthropology students was asked, case by case, whether each was a person. Hands went up readily. The newborn was a person; the chatbot, for most of the room, plainly was not; the company and the river provoked laughter and then hesitation once it emerged that a court and a parliament had in fact classified both as legal persons. The exercise did what it was designed to do. It showed that the boundaries of personhood are disputed, that law draws them in surprising places, and that intuitions about who counts are less settled than they first appear.

While preparing the lecture, and more sharply while delivering it, I found myself troubled by a different question. Why had I asked the students to compare these nine things through personhood in the first place? Nothing in the newborn, the river or the chatbot proposed that dimension, and the students had not chosen it either. I had. A foetus and a company share no common substance, no common form of life and no common problem. What brought them together on one slide was a category selected in advance, and once the category was in place, the only thing left to discuss was where its boundary fell. The exercise did something else, which I noticed only as the hands went up. It placed a room of eighteen-year-olds in the position of people entitled to decide whether other beings were persons, without making that entitlement part of what was being discussed. In teaching an argument about classification, I had reproduced two of the operations the argument was meant to examine: the selection of a classificatory question, and the allocation of authority to those who apply it.

The questions students asked afterwards made the difficulty impossible to ignore. One asked whether a newborn whose material circumstances were very different, or an adult without secure housing, would therefore have less personhood. Another asked whether anthropology could have any theory at all if it must not impose its categories on the people it studies. A law student asked why a dog can be destroyed after biting someone, when nobody holds the dog morally responsible in the way a human being would be held. Each question used the word person, and each was about something different: the relation between living conditions and standing, the relation between theory and the people theorised, and the relation between responsibility and institutional power over a living being.

The lecture had set out to show that personhood is an institutional classification rather than a property that beings simply possess. That claim still seems to me right about formal legal personhood. Teaching it showed that it was insufficient. The first problem with personhood lies less in how to define it than in how several different questions came to be mistaken for one. This chapter separates those questions before asking how they became connected, what the five mediations introduced in Chapter 1 contribute to describing the living relations from which they arise, and what follows for the authority to classify.

II. One Word, Several Different Questions

Personhood is a clear instance of what might be called conceptual compression: a single word gathering practices, relations and questions that are not of one kind. At least six operations can be distinguished. The first is first-person self-inquiry. Who am I, how have I changed, what makes me continuous with the one I was? Its concerns are memory, continuity, identity and the experience of becoming different over time. The second is second-person engagement: addressing another being as you, and answering when addressed. Its concerns are responsiveness, encounter and the organisation of relations with particular others. The third is third-person attribution. What kind of being is that? This is the position of the observer, including the anthropologist interpreting what others do. The fourth is moral recognition. How must this being be treated, and does what is done to it require justification? Its concerns are vulnerability, interests, obligation and care, and it does not depend on legal personality. The fifth is institutional standing. Does this entity count as a legal person for this purpose? Its concerns are enforceable rights and duties, liability, representation and decision. The sixth is anthropological comparison. What kind of person do people in this society take themselves or others to be? This is a theoretical question, and it presupposes that personhood is an appropriate dimension along which societies can be compared.

These operations overlap constantly in practice and remain analytically distinct. An infant can be addressed, fed and cared for long before it is capable of anything resembling first-person reflection. An elephant can take part in responsive relationships with keepers and with other elephants without holding any particular legal right. A corporation holds rights and liabilities without being an embodied organism of any kind. A human being can be fully recognised as a legal person while routinely being denied respect, attention or any meaningful voice in decisions about their life. A researcher can produce a sophisticated theory of personhood in some society without establishing that personhood is a central concern for anyone who lives there. None of these cases is an anomaly awaiting a better definition. Taken together, they suggest that different questions have been assembled under one word, and that the familiar puzzles of personhood arise when an answer to one question is expected to settle another.

The history of the word supports this reading. Marcel Mauss traced a sequence from the personnage, the role, name and mask held by a clan member among the Pueblo and on the Northwest Coast, through the Roman persona as a legal standing and the Christian person as a metaphysical substance, to the modern self as a category of consciousness (Mauss 1985 [1938]). He told this as the gradual formation of a category, culminating in the self that philosophy since Kant and Fichte had taken as fundamental. His genealogy remains indispensable, and it can also be read against its own grain. Roman jurists asking who could own, inherit and sue, theologians asking how three persons could share one divine substance, and philosophers asking what makes a life continuous through time were pursuing different problems, and a shared vocabulary allowed answers to pass from one domain into another. Boethius defined the person as an individual substance of a rational nature, naturae rationalis individua substantia, in the course of a dispute about the two natures of Christ (Boethius 1973). The definition later shaped what philosophers and lawyers assumed a person must be, although nothing in its origin concerned the standing of a debtor or the continuity of a memory.

The proposition that follows is simple to state and has wide consequences. Personhood is better understood as a historically accumulated intersection of different questions than as a single question with competing answers, and the relations among those questions have to be explained rather than assumed. The most important initial distinction concerns the positions from which the questions are asked.

III. I, You, and the Third-Person Observer

“Am I the same person I was ten years ago?” is a meaningful question for almost anyone. Habits, relationships, bodies, capacities and ways of understanding one’s life all change, and people sometimes register that change as discontinuity: after an illness, a migration, a bereavement, a conversion. The question can be asked in complete seriousness and answered in many ways. Asking whether one is legally a person is an entirely different operation, and most people never ask it of themselves at all. Their legal standing is a background condition of ordinary participation, as unremarked as the floor beneath them. When someone does say “Am I not a person?”, the words are rarely an inquiry into identity and usually a protest against degradation, exclusion, or treatment that denies recognition. Locke’s description of person as “a forensic term, appropriating actions and their merit” (Locke 1975 [1690]: II.xxvii.26) explains why identity and responsibility became so closely linked in modern thought, since holding someone responsible for yesterday’s act requires that the one who acted and the one who answers are the same. It does not follow that every question about identity is an institutional determination of personhood, or the reverse.

Between the first person and the third there is a position that discussions of personhood have largely passed over. Before I classify another being as a person, I may already be engaged with it as a responsive counterpart. A parent answers an infant’s cry, and the infant’s next cry is different because the first was answered. Someone speaks to a dog, watches how it responds, and adjusts their voice. A person responds to another’s expression of pain, fear or resistance by stopping what they were doing. In such situations what matters is the coordination of conduct with a particular other, and none of it requires the attribution of an abstract category called personhood. Second-person engagement can be present without any classification of personhood, and it often precedes classification by a long way: a newborn is addressed as you for years before it could understand any question about what it is.

This must not become a new hierarchy. Humans address animals, objects, places, machines and the dead, and not every act of address confers anything. Second-person address can also be coercive, mocking or manipulative, and it carries no guarantee of respect. The point is narrower: engagement and classification are different operations and must be investigated separately.

The difference becomes vivid in the shift from address to description. “You are frightened” and “Is that being a person?” do not organise the same relationship. The first is spoken to a counterpart whose response can alter what happens next: the frightened being may answer, withdraw or settle, and the speaker must respond in turn. The second is spoken about a being, usually to others, and its response becomes evidence to be interpreted rather than a move that changes the terms of the interaction. Third-person description is indispensable for every form of inquiry, and nothing in this argument recommends abandoning it. It permits, however, a particular transformation, in which a being who could be answered becomes a being who is assessed. That transformation is exactly what anthropology performs when it describes other societies’ concepts of the person.

IV. How Anthropology Invented Comparable Persons

Mauss’s genealogy is valuable precisely because it shows how differently the term has been used. It cannot serve as evidence that all these uses refer to one underlying object whose nature humanity gradually discovered. The anthropology that followed Mauss nevertheless tended to assume such an object, and to compare societies by the concepts of it they held.

Clifford Geertz gave the assumption its most quoted form: “The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgment, and action organized into a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other such wholes and against its social and natural background, is, however incorrigible it may seem to us, a rather peculiar idea within the context of the world’s cultures” (Geertz 1974: 31). The achievement of this sentence is real. It unsettled the presumption that a Western philosophical picture of the self is universally shared, and it taught generations of students to hold their own self-understanding at a distance. Two difficulties remain. The first concerns what exactly the Western conception is. It could be a legal model of the autonomous rights-bearing individual, a philosophical account of rational agency, a psychological theory, an ethnographic claim about how people in Europe and North America experience themselves, or a description of how they talk about their identities. These are different propositions, supported by different evidence, and the sentence moves among them without marking the transitions. The second difficulty concerns the assumption that Western people ordinarily experience themselves as bounded and self-contained. People everywhere are aware of being different in different settings. A student is one kind of person in a lecture hall and another at a party at midnight, and would find it odd to be told that they experience themselves as an integrated universe set against their background. The risk is that an account of Western institutions and philosophical traditions is mistaken for an account of Western first-person living.

McKim Marriott’s work on Hindu transactions introduced the term “dividual” for persons constituted through continuous exchanges of substance and code: food, touch, service, marriage, and the qualities these transfer (Marriott 1976). Marilyn Strathern’s The Gender of the Gift developed the idea into one of the most influential arguments in modern anthropology: “Far from being regarded as unique entities, 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). What the distinction makes visible is considerable: the composition of social beings through the contributions of others, the circulation of parts of persons in exchange, and the ways in which a gift can carry a relation rather than an object.

It would be a misreading to treat Strathern as naïvely reporting an indigenous opposition between individuals and dividuals. Her book is among the most reflexive works the discipline has produced. It treats Western analytic concepts, society, the individual and the commodity among them, as the anthropologist’s own cultural equipment, and it builds its Melanesian counterpart explicitly as a device for exposing that equipment. Its closing argument is concerned with what comparison can and cannot do. A critique that charged Strathern with ignoring her own position would be easy to dismiss, and it would be wrong.

The sharper questions concern epistemic status. How is the individual/dividual distinction built from ethnographic observations? How far does it correspond to distinctions that participants themselves articulate, as opposed to patterns the analyst reconstructs from exchanges, statements and ritual sequences? Could the same ethnography support quite different theoretical questions, about cultivation, about obligation, about the growth of bodies through feeding? And does a comparative architecture this reflexive nonetheless retain personhood as its organising problem without demonstrating that personhood is the right problem?

Here a double construction comes into view. The Western individual against which the dividual is defined is an analytical construction assembled largely from law, political philosophy and economics. The Melanesian dividual is an analytical construction elaborated from particular ethnographic materials. Anthropology may therefore compare two theoretical constructs while presenting their contrast as a comparison between ways of being in two kinds of society. The ethnography may be entirely sound; the issue is the distance between what happens, what participants articulate and what the anthropologist constructs, and the ease with which that distance disappears once a comparison is in place. The reflexivity of Strathern’s project lies in recognising that “Western” categories belong to the analyst. Its limit, on this reading, lies in leaving the comparative dimension itself insufficiently examined: the contrast between individual and dividual is reflexive about its terms and much less so about why persons should be the thing compared.

An anthropology of personhood therefore has to establish more than how persons differ across societies. It has to establish why personhood is the appropriate dimension along which those societies are compared.

V. Whose Questions Are We Asking?

Chapter 3 argued that any two societies can be compared along innumerable dimensions, that neither Edinburgh nor Kolkata supplies the dimension along which they are compared, and that one can refuse to rank societies and still inherit an unexamined grid of what is worth comparing. Chapter 1 added that a discipline trained to notice difference is prone to mistake conspicuous difference, whatever is strange, symbolic or contested, for consequential difference, while the similarities that organise most of living sink into the background.

Applied to personhood, this raises questions that the anthropology of the person has rarely posed. Why assume that every society has a concept of the person comparable to every other? Why presume that how people define persons is especially consequential to them? The relationships under investigation may be organised primarily around obligations, exchanges, cultivation, protection, care, or forms of responsiveness that never require the abstract question of what a person is. The relevance of personhood as a comparative category must be demonstrated in each case, and sometimes it will be.

A. Irving Hallowell’s Ojibwa ethnography shows why the demonstration matters. Hallowell asked an old man whether all the stones around them were alive, and was told: “No! But some are” (Hallowell 1960). Some stones had been seen to move; some were addressed as grandfather; the Thunder Birds were spoken to and answered. Hallowell described such beings as “other-than-human persons”, and the phrase opened a whole field of inquiry. Several questions need to be separated. What interactions occur between Ojibwa people and particular stones? What distinctions do participants themselves articulate, in Ojibwe, about which beings are animate and how they respond? How does the anthropologist translate those distinctions into English? What is gained, and what may be obscured, by describing the result through personhood? It would be too quick to say that every indigenous usage rendered as “person” is an import from Roman law. Translation can illuminate, and the choice of “person” made a politically important claim against the dismissal of Ojibwa experience as superstition. But the work of translation must be visible, and the decision to organise these relations under personhood is the anthropologist’s decision.

Malinowski’s instruction, read in Chapter 3 as a methodological one, was to study what concerns people most intimately, “the hold which life has on him” (Malinowski 1922: 25). A researcher may arrive interested in personhood and discover that something else is at stake: the growth of children through feeding, the obligations of exchange, the management of illness, the safety of sleep. The difficulty with an imported question lies less in a wrong answer than in the possibility that the question answers a problem that does not exist for the people being studied. If personhood is not to be the default entry point, something else has to be studied first.

VI. Living Before Personhood

Consider a newborn on its first day. It feeds, and the feeding goes well or badly. It is warm or cold; it is held, laid down, picked up; it sleeps in short cycles and wakes crying; its body adjusts to air, light, gravity, and a stomach that now has work to do. Around it, adults rearrange their sleep, their rooms and their hours. There are blankets, a cot, clothes, bottles or breasts, a car seat for the journey home. It is given a name, aloud first and then on a form; it acquires a record, a registered parentage, and a set of expectations about what it will become. This is a heterogeneous field of living coordination, and a great deal happens in it without anyone needing to resolve an abstract question about personhood.

Such a field can be described through the five mediations introduced in Chapter 1, which are irreducible to one another. Multisensorial embodiment names the bodily capacities, vulnerabilities and coordinations through which a living being continues. Multispecies being-with names engagement with other recursively responsive beings, human and otherwise. Multiversal dwelling names the found conditions, rhythms and places within which living goes on. Multimateriality names made things and the material arrangements that mediate living. Multisymbolization names naming, description, classification and the organisation of symbolic relationships. These are analytical mediations of living, and they do not add up to a person. A newborn does not possess more or less personhood depending on how many blankets, relatives or resources happen to be available, and an account that treated the five mediations as ingredients of personhood would turn them into exactly the kind of scoring system this chapter argues against.

A second set of distinctions, also drawn from Living Value Theory (Ecks 2026b), concerns levels of recursivity, the ways in which the consequences of coordination come to bear on its further course, or, more simply, the ways in which what happens feeds back into what happens next. At L1, coordination proceeds without becoming a question: the infant feeds, and nothing needs to be noticed. At L2, something becomes unsettled and is felt as such: hunger, cold, a cry that goes unanswered. At L3, aspects of that disturbance become symbolically articulated: “she is hungry”, “he has a fever”. At L4, articulations become portable, stabilised and institutionally actionable: a birth registered, a parent designated, a status conferred. At L5, established classifications and the conditions of their application become open to reconsideration. Personhood in its formal juridical sense is characteristically an L4 stabilisation. It would be a mistake, however, to treat personhood as a universal L4 category governing all the phenomena distinguished in the preceding sections. Self-inquiry, second-person address and moral concern occur at several levels and do not wait for institutional stabilisation.

The second-person position can now be stated more precisely. Responsive engagement with an infant, another adult, a dog or a horse takes place without any decision about whether that being belongs to an institutional category of persons. A further distinction, between recursive attribution and recursive relevance, helps here. Recursive attribution concerns what kind of counterpart a being is engaged as: something that does not alter its course because it has been engaged (a nonrecursive counterpart), something that responds to its own changing states (a selfrecursive counterpart), or something that responds to one’s responses (an interrecursive counterpart). Recursive relevance concerns how much of a living being’s coordination depends on that counterpart. What kind of counterpart is being engaged? How does it respond? What depends on the relationship? These are prior questions about coordination, and they are not alternative definitions of personhood.

Personhood classification, on this account, is one possible symbolic response to problems that emerge within living: who may decide for an infant, who answers for an act, who may own, who must be protected. The classification cannot substitute for an investigation of those problems, and it does not create the living it classifies. It can nonetheless profoundly change the conditions of that living. A legal classification is constituted multisymbolically, yet its operation is material and social, and its consequences reach across every mediation: who may consent to an infant’s medical treatment, where a child may live, which resources are available to its household, whose name it bears.

VII. What Institutions Actually Decide

Personhood becomes most consequential where institutions must allocate rights, obligations, liability, representation and standing. The jurist Gaius opened his Institutes, around 160 CE, by stating that “all the law we use relates either to persons, or to things, or to actions” (Gaius 1988: 1.8). The division between persons and things has organised European legal thought ever since. It was never perfectly binary, even in Rome, and it is not the origin of every later understanding of persons. Gaius discussed slavery within the law of persons; enslaved human beings could be bought and sold, and could also hold a peculium, act in their masters’ affairs, and be freed into citizenship. Legal statuses were differentiated, and legal personhood has never entailed one fixed package of rights and capacities.

The legal life course shows the same differentiation. In UK law, legal personality begins at live birth, though the foetus is protected in other ways, and the coordinations of feeding, warmth and attunement continue without interruption across the threshold. An eleven-year-old in Scotland cannot be held criminally responsible, since the age of criminal responsibility was raised from eight to twelve with effect from December 2021 (Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019); an eleven-year-old in England can, because the age there is ten. Neither child is a different kind of organism, and neither lacks legal personhood. What differs is the rule governing criminal responsibility. In Scotland a sixteen-year-old acquires general legal capacity, while a younger child may consent to medical treatment where a doctor judges them capable of understanding it (Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991, s. 2). An adult found to lack capacity for particular decisions remains a legal person while a guardian decides some matters on their behalf. Legally significant thresholds need not correspond to any sudden change in living coordination. Institutions distinguish capacities and statuses for purposes, and the purposes must be specified before the distinctions can be understood.

Three contrasting cases make the point more sharply. In Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd (1897), the House of Lords held that a company is a legal person distinct from its members, so that a trader who had incorporated his business was not personally liable for its debts. Separate legal personality here organises ownership, contract, litigation and liability, and it says nothing about embodiment, experience or vulnerability, because a company has none of these. The Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 declared that the Whanganui River “is a legal person and has all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person”, and created an office of two people, one nominated by the iwi with interests in the river and one by the Crown, to act and speak on its behalf. This personality arose through legislation settling a long-standing Māori claim, and it is inseparable from the arrangements of representation and governance the statute created. In Nonhuman Rights Project v Breheny (2022), New York’s Court of Appeals refused, by five votes to two, to extend the writ of habeas corpus to Happy, an Asian elephant held at the Bronx Zoo. The majority reasoned that the writ protects the liberty of human beings, noted that it had never been extended to a non-human animal, and warned of the far-reaching consequences of doing so for human relations with animals generally; one strand of its reasoning tied legal personhood to the capacity to bear duties. The two dissenting judges disagreed sharply. The litigation concerned the availability of one particular remedy and settled no universal question about elephant personhood.

These cases show that legal personhood does not identify a common biological, psychological or metaphysical substance. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that legal classifications tell us nothing about the entities concerned. Legal systems frequently take capacities, vulnerabilities, social relationships and practical consequences into account. The dissents in Happy’s case turned on what is known about the cognitive and social lives of elephants, and the Whanganui settlement turned on the relations between a river and the people who regard it as an ancestor.

What, then, is actually being classified? A proposal suggests itself: juridical personhood is less a determination of what an entity is than a way of organising which relationships and claims involving it can be recognised and enforced. A corporation can enter contractual and proprietary relations as a single party. A river can be represented within designated legal and governance arrangements. A child can be the bearer of rights without exercising all the capacities those rights involve. In each case the personhood question is inseparable from an architecture of recognised relationships. This is a proposal about legal personhood, and it should not be inflated into a definition of personhood in every sense distinguished earlier. Turned into a master category, it would rebuild the very compression this chapter is trying to undo.

The law student’s question tests the proposal. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which applies across Great Britain, the offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control is committed by its owner or the person in charge of it, and the court may order the dog’s destruction. The dog is not tried, is not held culpable, and is not a legal person, yet it bears the most irreversible consequence of the proceedings. The case shows why responsibility, dangerousness, agency, vulnerability, legal standing and institutional decision-making must be separated. A decision may have the gravest consequences for a living being without attributing human-style culpability to it, and the absence of culpability offers the being no protection from the decision. Medieval and early modern European courts sometimes did put animals on trial, which suggests that the present separation of culpability from consequence is itself a historical arrangement.

Legal personhood, then, is an institutional means of organising relations and decisions, and its consequences depend on which capacities, rights, responsibilities and forms of representation are actually attached to it. This leads to a question more fundamental than which entity receives the classification.

VIII. Who Is Entitled to Ask?

Imagine that you are sitting in a room while a committee discusses whether you are a person. The committee members consult definitions, consider precedents, put questions to you, assess your capacities, and eventually reach a decision. You are present throughout and understand every word. Your standing is precisely what is being discussed. The experience is disturbing before any decision is made, and it is worth asking why.

Before the deliberation begins, much has already been allocated. The members of the committee occupy the position of legitimate questioners: they may ask, weigh evidence and deliberate. You occupy the position of the questioned. Your participation, if it is permitted at all, is conditional on standards the committee controls: you may answer, but your answers are evidence, and what counts as a satisfactory answer is for the committee to decide. Someone who could be addressed as you is organised predominantly as the object of a third-person classification. The asymmetry is present in the organisation of the question itself.

Now suppose the decision is affirmative: you are a person. In one sense the problem has been resolved. In another, the most consequential feature of the situation has remained untouched. The committee was entitled to make your personhood questionable, and you were not entitled to make its authority questionable in the same way. The asymmetry preceded the verdict and survived it. The power to make another being’s personhood questionable cannot be justified simply by producing an affirmative answer.

The anthropology of personhood has rarely begun from this asymmetry. It has more commonly begun from the assumption that personhood names something that can be compared: Western individuals and Melanesian dividuals, living humans and legal corporations, infants and adults, animals and machines. Yet the comparison already presupposes what requires explanation. Someone has selected personhood as the relevant dimension, established what counts as evidence, and occupied a position from which the classifications of others can be formulated. The beings compared do not necessarily share the question, and those whose lives are described do not necessarily take part in setting its terms. The anthropologist rarely possesses the enforcement powers of a court, but does exercise authority over the organisation of knowledge, and the decision to compare people as individuals or dividuals establishes a field in which some differences appear and others disappear.

The ability to classify depends on an earlier stabilisation of who may classify. A judge, a registrar, an expert witness, a medical panel or a researcher does not possess authority as an intrinsic property. That authority is organised through prior institutional coordinations: appointments, qualifications, documents, procedures, and earlier classifications of legitimate roles and questions. These arrangements can become so settled that they vanish from view, which is why a committee deliberating about someone’s personhood rarely feels any need to justify its own presence. This can be called recursive authorisation. The term is meant to be sharper than the familiar claim that personhood is socially constructed. Social construction tells us that categories have histories and are produced through social practices. Recursive authorisation directs attention to the prior organisation of positions from which classifications can be authoritatively made, and it explains why the possibility of contesting a classification is so unevenly distributed. It implies no infinite regress in which every classifier requires a further classifier, because authority is historically stabilised and its holders inherit it rather than winning it afresh on each occasion.

Imagine the person in the chair asking: “Who gave you the authority to decide whether I am a person?” The committee may treat the question as irrelevant, as out of order, as evidence of cognitive capacity to be entered into the record, or as grounds for a procedural objection to be lodged elsewhere. Each response converts the challenge into material for the committee’s own procedure. The classifier determines the classification and also how challenges to its authority will be recognised.

In the terms introduced in section VI, L4 stabilises both the category and the roles entitled to apply it. L5 can reopen the category or the rules that authorise its application. Access to L5 contestation may itself be regulated by L4 procedures, however: one needs standing to bring a case, representation to be heard, resources to sustain an appeal, and recognition as a competent party before any objection counts. This generates a recursive burden. Those disadvantaged by a classification may need to obtain standing, representation, evidence and recognition simply to question the framework through which their standing was determined, while those who benefit from it can rely on it without ever having to defend it. Institutions can impose classifications before they ask for any account, and the burden of reopening those classifications falls asymmetrically on the classified. When five Alberta women took the Persons Case to the Privy Council, which decided in 1929 that women were “qualified persons” eligible for the Canadian Senate, they had to argue their way past an adverse ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada (Edwards v Attorney General for Canada 1930). Those who benefited from the exclusion never had to argue for it at all.

Conceptual justice, on this account, concerns more than the opportunity to contest a particular classification. It includes the possibility of questioning the comparative dimension that made the classification relevant, the authorisation of those who apply it, and the consequences that follow. None of this makes institutional classification illegitimate, since many legal determinations protect vulnerable beings. The classification of a child as a legal person whose interests must be represented, the appointment of human voices for a river, and the requirement that states recognise the legal capacity of persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others and provide access to the support they may need in exercising it (United Nations 2006: art. 12) all redistribute standing toward those who would otherwise lack it. The issue is whether the authority exercised is justified, constrained, revisable, and accountable to those it affects.

IX. Personhood Without Legal Exclusion

The student who asked about homelessness identified a tension between living conditions and institutional recognition, and the question deserves a precise answer. Secure housing, adequate food, bodily safety and stable relationships profoundly affect the coordination of living. Someone sleeping in a doorway through an Edinburgh winter coordinates embodiment, dwelling and being-with under conditions that make every night precarious. Lacking these conditions establishes no deficit of personhood. The five mediations describe how living is organised and provide no scoring system for degrees of humanity. An infant born into poverty and an infant born into wealth have identical legal personality and radically different conditions of coordination, and the difference matters for almost everything except their personhood.

Yet the student’s intuition points at something real. A person without a home possesses ordinary legal personality and may still be treated institutionally as someone whose preferences, autonomy and attachments carry little weight. They may be moved on from places where they sleep, sorted through eligibility categories, denied access to spaces open to others, and addressed predominantly through procedures of management and control. These experiences should not be equated with formal legal non-personhood, and describing them in that way would trivialise the situations in which legal personhood has actually been withheld. They demonstrate a different phenomenon: juridical recognition can coexist with practices that make a person’s claims systematically less effective.

The second-person position becomes important again here. There is a difference between someone asking a man in a doorway “What do you need?” and officials asking one another “Where should we put this person?” Both questions can be necessary in particular settings, and they distribute agency and participation differently. The first makes his answer consequential for what happens next. The second treats him as a case whose disposal is to be decided, however benevolently. Much of what people experience as being treated as less than a person takes place within the second kind of question, among beings whose legal personhood nobody disputes.

The politics of personhood therefore cannot be understood solely through the legal boundary between persons and non-persons. It also concerns the everyday distribution of recognition, voice and practical standing among those already classified as persons. Formal standing and practical standing can come apart, and the gap between them is where much of the injury of exclusion is suffered.

X. Can Anthropology Have Theory?

The student who asked whether anthropology can have theory if it must not impose questions on the people it studies raised a serious objection to the method developed here. If one must first discover what matters to people before choosing analytical categories, how can research begin from a theoretical framework at all? And does the framework used in this book not impose its own categories, mediations and levels, on every situation it describes?

The alternative to premature classification is not theorylessness. Every inquiry begins from a position, with interests, concepts, expectations and historically formed capacities for attention. There is no neutral, concept-free description of living, and an anthropologist who claimed to have one would simply be using concepts without noticing them. The relevant distinction lies between using theory provisionally, to discover and articulate relationships that would otherwise go unnoticed, and using theory to determine in advance what the material must mean. A theory worth having is one whose questions can be redirected by what it finds.

My own fieldwork in Kolkata, described in Chapter 3, was planned as a study of ideas of pollution and became a study of the stomach, because something more consequential for the people concerned kept surfacing. The value of ethnography lies partly in making such redirection possible, and an anthropology that could not be redirected by its material would have lost its main reason for doing fieldwork.

An important qualification follows. What matters to the people studied cannot always be identified simply by asking them. People disagree among themselves. They may lack a ready vocabulary for what concerns them most, or the concerns may be too obvious to mention. Some participants lack speech altogether, as infants and animals do, and others are systematically silenced by those who speak for them. Observed practice, embodied disturbance, material constraint and forms of resistance therefore remain essential sources of evidence. Nor should anthropology assume that a single indigenous point of view represents everyone in a setting: “the native’s point of view” is itself a compression of many positions.

The same standard applies to the framework used in this book. The five mediations and five levels of recursivity are useful insofar as they help distinguish forms of coordination and reveal what is at stake. They become a problem as soon as they are treated as an exhaustive catalogue into which all observations must fit. An anthropology built on these distinctions must therefore remain open to revising its analytical distinctions as well as its findings, and the inquiry into which questions become askable under which conditions applies to its own questions as much as to anyone else’s.

The methodological principle can be stated simply. Bringing concepts to living is unavoidable; the problem begins when concepts become authoritative over living without remaining answerable to it. This principle connects the three arguments of the chapter: the critique of anthropological comparison, the analysis of juridical personhood, and the account of recursive authorisation. In each case a classification acquires authority over the beings it describes, and in each case the question is whether those beings, and the coordinations in which they live, can still bear on the classification.

XI. What Is a Person, Then?

This chapter began with a classroom vote on whether nine radically different entities were persons. The temptation at the end is to supply a better criterion that would classify all nine correctly. It should be resisted, because the inquiry has shown that the question cannot be answered adequately without identifying the practice within which it is asked. When someone asks who they are, the problem concerns the articulation of their own living. When someone addresses another, the concern is responsiveness and recognition. When an anthropologist describes a society’s persons, the issue is interpretation and the selection of comparative concepts. When a court decides whether an entity is a legal person, the issue is institutional standing and its practical consequences. These operations intersect, and they do not collapse into one.

A person, then, should not be treated as a single kind of entity whose universal properties can be read off from living or inferred from every use of a common word. In its legal and political uses, personhood can be understood as a historically situated organisation of recognised standing, obligations, claims and possibilities of participation. Living beings are already coordinating, responding, depending, resisting and mattering to one another before any institutional settlement of their personhood, and they go on doing so when recognition is withheld. What changes with the classification is the organisation of relationships through which their living is permitted to matter.

The most important question in that lecture theatre concerned less whether the newborn, the company, the river, the elephant or the chatbot counted as a person than why these beings had been brought together under that question, what decisions an answer would make possible, and why some participants in the discussion were entitled to classify while others could only be classified. Before asking what a person is, we need to know what we are doing when we ask.

Questions to Take Further

Of the six operations distinguished in section II, which one were you performing when you voted, or imagined voting, on the nine candidates? Pick one of the legal cases in section VII and say what relationships and claims the classification organises. Think of an occasion when you were asked a question by someone entitled to ask it, at a border, in a clinic or in an examination. What could you challenge, and what could you not?

Conclusion: Before the Question

Each chapter of this book has looked at a step that happens before inquiry begins and that is easy to mistake for part of the world being studied. In Chapter 1 the step was attention. A discipline trained to notice the strange, the symbolic and the contested will find a great deal of strangeness, symbolism and contest, and will pass over sleep, digestion, sitting and the ordinary company of others, however much of a life these occupy. In Chapter 2 the step was a partition inside a word. Once the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had sorted the world of Cato’s farm into nature, civilisation and culture, a discipline built on the third of these inherited a field of study in which bodies, places and animals had already been pushed to the margins. In Chapter 3 the step was selection. Refusing to rank societies, which anthropology learned to do, leaves open the question of why they should be compared through kinship, religion, law and exchange rather than through whatever matters most to the people who live in them. In Chapter 4 the step was authorisation. Before anyone can decide whether a newborn, a river or an elephant is a person, someone must already occupy the position of the one who asks, and that position is rarely itself in question.

These four steps are connected. What catches attention depends partly on the categories a discipline has inherited, those categories depend on the history of words like culture and person, and the authority to apply them depends on institutions that settled long ago who may classify and who may only be classified. The same remedy runs through every chapter, which is to begin somewhere other than the inherited category. One place to begin is with the five mediations of living introduced in Chapter 1: having a body that tires and sleeps, living among others whose moods matter, dwelling in conditions nobody made, making things, and making meanings. Another is with the shared stakes discussed in Chapter 3, the need to sleep safely, to eat, to raise children and to manage illness and risk, which every human population must meet in its own way, provided they are treated as a starting point for inquiry rather than as a new fixed grid. A third is with the instruction Malinowski gave at the founding of British social anthropology, read as Chapter 3 reads it: to study “what concerns him most intimately, that is, the hold which life has on him”.

None of this asks anyone to give up theory, comparison or classification. Chapter 3 argued that abstraction cannot be avoided, only done honestly, and Chapter 4 argued that a theory worth having is one whose questions can be redirected by what it finds. The demand is narrower and more practical. Whenever a category is in use, it is worth asking what it is for, who selected it, what it leaves out, and whether the people and beings it describes can still bear on it. That applies to the categories this book has offered as much as to any others.

The course this book accompanies is organised around the stages of a human life, from conception and birth through childhood, personhood, the body and sexuality, marriage and home, exchange and food, health and work, and sickness and death to memory. These are recurring dimensions of human life and of social reproduction rather than experiences every individual must personally undergo, since not everyone conceives a child or marries, and each has been noticed by anthropology unevenly, in some places and periods and not in others. Approaching them in this order is one way of practising what the four chapters recommend: starting from what living requires, attending to how people in different places tend to those requirements, and building comparison afterwards. Chapter 1 ended with a definition of anthropology as the disciplined practice of wondering about how humans live. The chapters that followed suggest an addition. The discipline is at its best when it also wonders about its own questions, and about what it is doing when it asks them.

Glossary

Comparative dimension. The respect in which two or more cases are compared, such as kinship, law or sleep. Any two societies resemble and differ from each other in countless ways, so the dimension always has to be selected, and the selection shapes what the comparison can find (Chapters 3 and 4).

Conceptual compression. The gathering of practices, relations and questions that are not of one kind under a single word. Personhood is the main example in Chapter 4, and culture in Chapter 3 is another.

Cultura. The Latin word from which culture descends. In classical usage it named the cultivation of something, a field (cultura agri) or a mind (cultura animi), rather than a thing a person or people possessed. In Cato’s world cultivation combined tending, maintenance, control and ritual obligation, with very unequal stakes for those involved (Chapter 2).

Dividual. A term introduced by McKim Marriott and developed by Marilyn Strathern for persons understood as composed of the relations, substances and exchanges that produced them, in contrast to the bounded individual (Chapter 4).

Five mediations. The five aspects of living used throughout this book, irreducible to one another: multisensorial embodiment, multispecies being-with, multiversal dwelling, multimateriality and multisymbolization. They are drawn from Living Value Theory (Ecks 2026a) (Chapter 1, and again in Chapters 2 and 4).

Habitus. Pierre Bourdieu’s term for durable, embodied dispositions, installed early and mostly below conscious awareness, through which social position shows itself in posture, taste and bearing (Chapter 2).

Levels of recursivity (L1 to L5). Five ways in which what happens feeds back into what happens next. At L1 coordination proceeds without becoming a question; at L2 something is unsettled and felt as such; at L3 the disturbance is put into words; at L4 the words become stable and institutionally actionable, as in a registration or a legal status; at L5 established classifications themselves become open to reconsideration (Ecks 2026b; Chapter 4).

Multimateriality. The making and shaping of things, and the material arrangements, from blankets to buildings, that mediate living (Chapters 1 and 2).

Multisensorial embodiment. Having a body that senses, tires, heals, sleeps, ages and eventually dies; often shortened to embodiment (Chapter 1).

Multispecies being-with. Living among others, human and otherwise, whose actions and moods matter whether or not anything is said about them; often shortened to being-with (Chapter 1).

Multisymbolization. Naming, describing, classifying and the making and use of symbols in general. Its open-ended coupling with multimateriality, including symbolic reference to things that are absent, is what is most distinctive about humans (Chapter 1).

Multiversal dwelling. The found conditions of existence that no human hand created, such as climate, gravity, daylight and altitude; often shortened to dwelling (Chapter 1).

Nonrecursive, selfrecursive and interrecursive counterparts. Three kinds of counterpart a living being can be engaged with: one that does not alter its course because it has been engaged, one that responds to its own changing states, and one that responds to one’s responses (Chapter 4).

Non-human test. The question, asked of any topic, whether it would also apply to an animal. Embodiment, being-with and dwelling usually pass it; the human elaboration of things and symbols usually does not (Chapter 1).

Notes and Queries on Anthropology. A manual first issued in 1874, with Tylor on its drafting committee, that told travellers, missionaries and administrators in advance what to record about the societies they visited. It separated the measurement of bodies from the recording of customs and institutions, and fixed a grid of comparative headings that long outlived the manual itself (Chapter 3).

Partition. The division between culture and nature, prepared by the eighteenth-century narrowing of the word culture and hardened in the nineteenth century, which pushed bodies, places and animals towards nature and left culture centred on symbolic content. Herder and Boas challenged ranking but did not undo the partition (Chapter 2).

Ranking and selection. Two different problems in comparison. Ranking places societies above or below one another on a single scale; selection decides which dimensions they are compared on. Relativism answered the first and left the second open (Chapter 3).

Recursive authorisation. The prior institutional organisation of positions from which classifications can be authoritatively made, which explains why some people may classify while others can only be classified (Chapter 4).

Recursive burden. The unequal burden, placed on those disadvantaged by a classification, of obtaining standing, representation and recognition simply in order to question it (Chapter 4).

Relativism. The position, descending from Herder and made central to American anthropology by Boas, that practices should be judged by standards internal to the people who hold them rather than by an outside observer’s standards. Methodological relativism is a rule of inquiry; strong moral relativism denies outsiders any ground for criticism (Chapter 3).

Shared stakes. Needs that every human population must meet in its own way, such as sleeping safely, eating, raising children and managing illness and risk, proposed in Chapter 3 as a sounder ground for comparison than inherited institutional categories.

Thick description. Clifford Geertz’s term for the interpretation of the layered, publicly legible meanings of an act, illustrated by the difference between a twitch and a wink (Chapter 2).

Wonder profile. The changing sense, at a given moment in a discipline’s history, of which corners of an almost limitless field are worth sustained attention (Chapter 1).

References

Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 (asp 7).

Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 (c. 50).

Barnard, Alan, and Jonathan Spencer, eds. 2010. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Boas, Franz. 1887. “Museums of Ethnology and Their Classification.” Science 9 (228): 587–589. (Boas’s letter in his exchange with Otis T. Mason and W. H. Dall on the arrangement of ethnological collections.)

Boethius. 1973. Contra Eutychen et Nestorium. In The Theological Tractates and The Consolation of Philosophy, translated by H. F. Stewart, E. K. Rand and S. J. Tester. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Cato, Marcus Porcius. c. 160 BCE/1934. On Agriculture. Translated by W. D. Hooper, revised by H. B. Ash. Loeb Classical Library 283. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Clare, Lee. 2020. “Göbekli Tepe, Turkey: A Brief Summary of Research at a New World Heritage Site (2015–2019).” e-Forschungsberichte des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 2020 (2). https://doi.org/10.34780/efb.v0i2.1012.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 45 BCE/1927. Tusculan Disputations. Translated by J. E. King. Loeb Classical Library 141. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (c. 65).

Ecks, Stefan. 2014. Eating Drugs: Psychopharmaceutical Pluralism in India. New York: New York University Press.

Ecks, Stefan. 2026a. “What Are the Five Mediations?” Living Value Theory, livingvaluetheory.org.

Ecks, Stefan. 2026b. “What Is Recursivity?” Living Value Theory, livingvaluetheory.org.

Edwards v Attorney General for Canada [1930] AC 124 (PC).

Elias, Norbert. 2000 [1939]. The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Revised edition. Translated by Edmund Jephcott. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gaius. 1988. The Institutes of Gaius. Translated by W. M. Gordon and O. F. Robinson. London: Duckworth.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” In The Interpretation of Cultures, 3–30. 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.

Glaskin, Katie, and Richard Chenhall, eds. 2013. Sleep Around the World: Anthropological Perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hall, Stuart, ed. 1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage.

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.

Herder, Johann Gottfried. 1784–91/1969. J. G. Herder on Social and Political Culture. Translated and edited by F. M. Barnard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hertz, Robert. 1960 [1909]. “The Pre-eminence of the Right Hand: A Study in Religious Polarity.” In Death and the Right Hand, translated by Rodney Needham and Claudia Needham. London: Cohen and West.

Ingold, Tim. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.

Jalais, Annu. 2010. Forest of Tigers: People, Politics and Environment in the Sundarbans. New Delhi: Routledge.

Kroeber, Alfred L., and Clyde Kluckhohn. 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 47 (1). Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.

Locke, John. 1975 [1690]. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (First published 1690; the chapter “Of Identity and Diversity” was added in the second edition of 1694. Nidditch’s edition follows the fourth edition of 1700.)

Malinowski, Bronisław. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: George Routledge and Sons.

Malinowski, Bronisław. 1944. A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Marriott, McKim. 1976. “Hindu Transactions: Diversity without Dualism.” In Transaction and Meaning, edited by Bruce Kapferer, 109–142. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

Martin, Emily. 1991. “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 16 (3): 485–501.

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.

Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Breheny, 38 NY3d 555 (2022).

Notes and Queries on Anthropology, for the Use of Travellers and Residents in Uncivilized Lands. 1874. Drawn up by a committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. London: Edward Stanford.

Rappaport, Roy A. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Said, Edward W. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. London: Chatto and Windus.

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 (HL).

Steger, Brigitte, and Lodewijk Brunt, eds. 2003. Night-time and Sleep in Asia and the West: Exploring the Dark Side of Life. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

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

Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (NZ).

Tylor, Edward B. 1871. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom. 2 vols. London: John Murray.

United Nations. 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York: United Nations.

Williams, Raymond. 1958. “Culture Is Ordinary.” In Conviction, edited by Norman MacKenzie. London: MacGibbon and Kee.

Williams, Raymond. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana.