Tools, Language and Cognition Author(s): Chris Knight, Tim Ingold, Bruno Latour Source: The Journal of the

Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 396 -399 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3034696 Accessed: 06/08/2010 09:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

396

COMMENT

in Lalitpur. In palaeolithic willconcur. A soluarchaeologists Gellner, D.N. 1995.Low castes old debate wouldbe the a coUaborative tionto one extremely ethnography Contested hierarchies: hyand robust of a bodyof testable the Newars ofthe Kathmanduprovision among ofcaste emerto account fortheevolutionary Nepal (eds) D.N. Gellner& D. potheses Valley, Far and symbolism. Clarendon Press. Oxford: genceof humanlanguage Quigley. aptheeditors such a solution, community in from offering Moffatt, M. 1979.An untouchable that they so dislike thewholeproblem India: structure andconsensus. Princeton: parently south else. something we tackled wouldrather Univ.Press. chez lesNbwars Whatthis'something etreligion Toffin, G. 1984.Soci&6 to only else' amounts CNRS. becomes clear in Ingold's 'epilogue'. Here duNepal.Paris: since (Ingold1993: 449-72)we are told that, from song,and songinspeechis inseparable from a 'cello,in turn a form playing separable Tools, language and cognition - thephenomenon in need of exof tool-use planationis a complexwhole. Despite the (Man (N.S.) 29,486-7)provides book's title, BrunoLatour does not exist.Neither language ofTimIngold's andKathleen does technology; review a eulogistic does cognition. and neither language andcog- Instead, Gibson's edited volume, Tools, huIngoldholdsup as thearchetypal Latourfailsto men- man situation evolution. nition in human 'the in need of contemplation thrust of thisvolumeis harvester tionthattheeditorial in a conhisscythe atwork, swinging and opposedto mostof whatis cur- stant, partisan andsingmovement dancelike rhythmic, within palaeoanthropology. ing as he does so' (1993: 463-4). Being'narrently happening is row', Darwinismis allegedto be unable to emerged how humanlanguage Explaining to science which embrace a definite, concrete challenge vision;Ingoldrecomsucha holistic Among mends as antidotes arousing much interest. is currently a seriesof philosophers 'selfish-gene'Darwinians, Robin Dunbar, who includeBourdieu,Heidegger, Merleauandmany oth- Ponty and Wittgenstein. Burling, Steven Pinker Robbins BiologistshenceThis forward strides forward. ershavemadesubstantial not natural are to place centre-stage is ignoredin the selection whole school of thought as an intenbut'theorganism-person we haveverbal tional and creativeagent....' (Ingold 1993: volume.Instead Gibson/Ingold putsit,'redis- 470). Ingoldmakesclearthatby this'organwhich, as Latour reformulations in 'otheractivities', dismiss- ism-person', tribute' language he means not only the human for example,as 'just another agent ing 'syntax', chimpanzee. butalso theintentional communiflood of overcoming the meansfor I feellikethrowing In thefaceofall this, up with myhands origins cativeacts'. Showering language notentirely meanin despair. Where a ingless, willconvince no-onethat tricks suchverbal in a new it strikes me as creationism difficult andintrigu- guise,contrasting answer to this substantive with Bishop Wilberforce's hasat lastbeenfound. ingproblem in sanctifying than rather version mostnotably to this anathematizing the contributors Latourcommends itneedsto theape.In response, volumefor'shying awayfrom'the 'extreme' be stressed: primatoloornithologists, telling - as if gists of 'Machiavellian intelligence' theories that they biologists evolutionary andother theory were shouldbe doingpostmodernist 'tactical deception' neo-Darwinian socialanthrocontribution fromthe fringe. pology some crackpot and other is not Chimpanzees helpful. Readersof this journalshouldknowthaton animalorganisms are not'persons', however is accepted suchtheory thecontrary, byvirtu- 'intentional' and even 'creative' theymaybe. of the evolution of signalling Dissolving allyall students in this distinctions primate/human and showsno signs 'holistic' amonganimals, behaviour butobwaydoes notsolveproblems of beingreplaced else. fuscates by anything whatever some of the mostexciting challenges of humanlanguage as a specific nowfacing The origins anthropology. to form ofsignalling is an evolutionary problem, CHRIS KNIGHT sciences. be solved withinthe evolutionary EastLondon of or 'holistic' University Whilsta loose interdisciplinary approachmay offerthe occaphilosophical will seem ulti- Ingold, no contribution sionalinsight, T. 1993. language, Technology, Epilogue. - becoming with integrated satisfying mately in andcognition In Tools, language intelligence. - ifpremissed on an attempt ofscience therest human evolution (eds) KR. Gibson & T. 'selfish to turnthe clockback on the recent Univ.Press. Cambridge: Ingold. in thelife-sciences whichhas gene'revolution ofevoluhowtherest doneso muchto clarify flies outburst somewhat intemperate Knight's tionworks. directions. in three andcognition off that separate language simultaneously Latour claims Tools, forpresuming Latour is to condemn theory by 'offer- The first neo-Darwinian marginalizes of our book.The review a favourable to 'old debates'. to write fresh solutions' ingcompletely for thebookitself or secondis to condemn palaeontologists giving biologists, Fewevolutionary

COMMENT

397

insufficient spacetothework ofcertain 'selfish- since throughout human evolutionthe two gene'theorists ofwhomKnight happens toap- have been inextricably and interdependent prove. The third is to condemn me for indulg- mutually reinforcing. For myown partI have of the volume,in a argued ing,in my finalchapter between thesocial thatthedistinction hostof sinswhichrange from thesuggestion andthetechnical dichotomy berests on a false that evolutionary biologists might benefit from tweensociety and thattheexplicand nature, reading theworksof certain philosophers (of itlycognitivist invoked notionof intelligence whom Knight plainly to calling by Machiavellian disapproves) theorists artificially separates intoquestionthe orthodox division between thesphere from of an agent's problem-solving human beings and non-human primates. that in theenvironment. ofitsinvolvement I wasofcourse to readLatour's redelighted as it may, Be that theimportant thing is that well the spirit whichcaptured and alternative view, very approaches to thisand otherissues ofthevolume. But it is notforme to shouldbe openly purpose and thatparties to debated, defendhis views,nor would I presumeto suchdebate thescholarly integshouldrespect speakforhim.I would,however, liketo res- rity This is surely oftheir thefirst adversaries. to thevolume as a principle pondto Knight's objections scientific dialogue. of constructive whole.He thinks that thebookhas a partisan Judging Knight by the tone of his comment, and that editorial thrust, Kathleen Gibsonand does notadhere He seemsto to thisprinciple. I, aidedand abetted byour contributors, have think thatanything thatrunscounter to the on every- majority attack conspired to launcha frontal in contemporary studiesof verdict in current human evolutionis both counterproductive thing positiveand progressive The sourceof this gro- and hostile palaeoanthropology. to science.Perhaps thatis whyhe visionis a mystery tesquely distorted to me. finds it so difficult withthe to come to terms in order that However, it shouldnotprejudice book,andwhyhe finds it 'partisan'. readers who may not have seen the book,I whathas really arousedKnight's Evidently, shouldsaya fewwordsabouthow the latter wrath is myfinal of thebook,itsEpichapter was conceived. intellilanguage, logue,entitled 'Technology, Kathleen Gibsonis a biological anthropolo- gence:a reconsideration I of basic concepts'. gist;I am a socialanthropologist. Our intellec- beginthechapter thatthemain by remarking tual backgrounds and we approaches are verydifferent, inthevolume addup to represented on manythings. But if thereis one a very disagree ofneo-Darwinian powerful combination thingon whichwe are strongly agreed, it is biology, psycholcognitive and developmental in understanding thatprogress theevolution- ogy, Atthe or structural linguistics. andformal aryinterconnexions between speech, tool use, timeoftheconference, I felt extremely uneasy socialbehaviour and cognition can onlycome aboutthese I was unable to though approaches, aboutthrough acrosstheincreasinglyarticulate dialogue clearly. Subsequentmyreservations artificial frontier between socialand biological ly, I forpublication, in editing theproceedings branches ofanthropology. It was this viewthat was forced with to attempt to come to grips motivated ourcollaboration bothin organizing them. ofmyefforts. The Epilogue wastheresult theconference that and Itwas noteasytowrite, gaveriseto thevolume that the sinceI realized in editing forpublication. We were direction thepapers ofmythinking wouldputme atodds alsoagreed theissuesat stake are not onlywiththe majority that although to of contributors to anthropology, fundamental their resolution the book,forwhoseworkI have the highest from other callsforcontributions disci- regard, many as well. I do but with my co-editor plines, includingneurophysiology, develop- however in theveryfirst makeit clear, paramentaland cognitive psychology, linguistics, graph, the that whatI haveto sayrunsagainst and primatology. The grain prehistoric archaeology for ofthevolumeas a whole.Somehow, an opportunity conference forschol- reasons provided hasmanaged to that escapeme,Knight arsfrom all thesefields to share their thewrong findings, getcompletely endofthestick, suptheories, ideasandhunches. posingtheEpilogueto be thefinalrevelation in of an editorial As Kathleen Gibsonand I state explicitly bias thatworksitsway insidithevolume's we believe that suchdi- ously all preface, theentire book,as though throughout is all to thegood,espe- the arguments versity of viewpoints were tarred therein presented are stillat such an with thesamebrush. couldbe further ciallywhen our inquiries Nothing thetruth. ofdevelopment. We makeno claim from early stage to advocate unified nor is entitled any single, to disagree withme,and I approach, Knight Unfortudidwe impose on ourcon- am happyto respondto criticism. anysuchapproach It is truethatneither is a cariof us is much nately, all he is able to offer tributors. however, taken ofso-called 'Machiavellian catureof myargument whose crudity bythetheory would wereitnotbanal.I stand fordif- be offensive, We objectto it,however, intelligence'. accused, ferent reasons. Gibson's viewis that intoeveryeverything arguments in his eyes,of running abouttherelative ofsocialintelligence thing of neoprimacy the tidydivisions else, refusing and technical intelligence arebesidethepoint, Darwinism andtherefore andcognitive science,

398

COMMENT

are enin wishy-washy He cites he is not.The opinionshe expresses holism. of indulging and extreme albeit in a lessstrident as countered, a passage inwhich I portray, (outofcontext) of timeand timeagainamongstudents tooluse,the form, situation ofhuman thearchetypal an episevolution. Unableto recognize withthisexam- human 'harvester at work'.My point, whenthey see one,they argument account temological Cartesian ple,wastoopposetheclassic butareaggressively testable hypotheses execution call for as themechanical action oftechnical of to theframework ofanychallenge bythera- intolerant solved topuzzlesalready ofsolutions are whichsuchhypotheses within In thesamevein,I criticize the assumptions intellect. tional In their who doubts book,anyone viewoflanguage organ generated. as a mental Chomskyan of neo-Darwinian theory can ofwell-formed sentences the orthodoxy fortheconstruction a crypto-Creationist or an unreto be executedin speech.There is nothing onlybe either who still clings to a presocialscientist - theyhave been formed novel in these criticisms By evolution. notion ofprogressive by Darwinian mainly however made manytimesbefore, I clearly belong to theforreckoning, consigns to his waste Knight's scholars whom Knight - indeed he compares me, no spa- mer category one,sufficiently bin.Andhisbinis a large Bishop Wilberforce as the some of the greatest less,to thenotorious cious to accommodate of a lost cause. In tochampion century. Thoughhe is opinionated thinkers ofthetwentieth itis Knight whois arguhowever, thatthe like of day'sdebate, enoughto suggest generous and Wittgensteining on the side of religionand the estabHeidegger, Merleau-Ponty - except is Science. thathis religion this is lishment the 'occasionalinsight', have offered strides Those who wouldjoin withhim in claiming to the 'substantial compared nothing there that mustbe right because neo-Darwinism madebyselfish forward' genetheorists. and who would dismissall in writing the Epilogue, was is no alternative, My concern, and enemiesof Science, as heretics claimsthat to exposetheprior areim- doubters simply of thelatetwentieth in theproposition thatsuchthings as are therealWilberforces plicated and intelligence existas century! technology language, thatwe can atTIM INGOLD such,and have an evolution If theseclaims University to describe and explain. tempt Manchester of we should arenotwell-founded, thenperhaps In orsetofquestions. be asking an alternative derto givean idea ofwhatsuchan alternative MichelSerres therela(1974) once compared I considered whatwouldhap- tionbetween looklike, might to the science andthehumanities thetaskof examining one between pen ifwe set ourselves and wildermodemagriculture notbetween ness.The sciences in humanevolution, therelation, of developa smallnumber but be- highly and intelligence technology, language productive speciesof cornor wheatto tween craftsmanship, song and imagination. an extraordinary from time to butthen, degree, is time,mustreturn in adopting this alternative The shift entailed or to the forest, meadows, thatregards actionas the marshes, froma perspective ofnotso number wherean immense con- productive 'mental ofa cognitive, behavioural output to be singled are waiting varieties it as issu- out, selected, treats structional' deviceto one that in an inbredand reproduced in itsat- definite thewholeorganism-person ingfrom thehunumber ofcopies.Philosophy, of the manitiesand literate withcomponents engagement tentive in general enterprises for maintain The implications ofthisshift environment. on the of varieties a vaststorehouse aboutevolution areprofound. fringeof highlyproductive thewaywe think Dr cornfields. re- Knight critical ForKnight, all this is causenotfor a fewrepetitive and productive prefers His is varieties anddespair. flection butfor arm-waving to the riskof thinking of hypotheses It is the re- aboutmorecomplex of a scientist. not the response issues.My and uncertain whose creedis scien- philosophy sponseof a missionary I like the of scienceis different. ofthiscreedare notto richcornfields tism. And theprecepts - I am a staunch of champion howevermuch theymay go sociobiology be questioned, in France, whereforsomereason - butI or thewisdomof common thisapproach experience against is considered right-wing sense.For example, manypeoplearoundthe feel betterstill when I see the fieldssurattests, suppose that rounded world, as ethnography rangeof hypotheby an even richer as well as humanbeings ses. This somehowreassures animals non-human we will me that in such be protected is notinterested canbe persons. Knight from thehegemony ofone scienIfthepeoplesayone thing, andscience tific claims. schooloverall theothers. thepeoplearesimply wrong, pethen another, Being French,I imagine,I have a deep is not out to learnfrom people, distrust riod.Knight revolutions. of scientific So, when theselfish for hisbrand ofscientism. Knight butto gainconverts criticizes a bookfor omitting a sect- indeed ru- gene- as ifthisidea had had no publicexpoHe should andfound go off mourhasitthat he hasalready doneso. sure- I feeluneasy. Whyis he so upsetby a so review ofan original book,so much If Knightwere alone in his views there positive thatold foilof thathe brings to his response causefor wouldbe little concern. Unfortunately

COMMENT

399

642-4;29, 182-6) Is 1990;Man (N.S.) 27, 175-9, scientific discussion: Bishop Wilberforce? underwhatin myvieware distorted neo-Darwinism so firmly established thatit has left stuAs a long-time aboutthisfield. Or is it so weak standings can do without competition? retribes, and as a researcher one bookthreatens ofscien- dentof Iranian that theextension As ferred to in thisexchange bycitation and also tific reasoningamong anthropologists? I shouldliketo address several someone interested in technology, it was a byimplication, greatrelief to me to read a book whichfor issues. once made no simplistic assumptions about is theinfluence of Central to thediscussion and itslinks to socialpractice, Barth's of south Persia (hereafter technical action (1961)Nomads of referred researchers. to as NSP) on succeeding notions and whichaccepted verydifferent I do notknow Street's this is 'holistic'; cognition. Maybe whichinitiated thisdis(1990) article, ifitis 'postmodern'. Butin anycase,thestatus cussionand to whichBarth(1992) responds, of evolutionary is arguesthatNSP is an example scenarios usingDarwinism of Orientalist the immense discourse, imposing inappropriate, not stableenoughto eliminate foreign resource of alternative schoolsof thought (cf concepts as well and modelson localpeoples, Latour & Strum 1986;Landau1991).Whenwe as accepting the self-serving accounts of local do not know elites. bringin technology, we simply to Street (1990:247), NSP is According to selfish 'memes'and selfish a 'smallstudy', enoughto stick most diswith which specialists to think moredeeply andidentify agree (although no evidenceis presented We must genes. newvarieties. which can be consupportthis assertion), The introduc- trasted Knight shouldbe reassured. with'fuller accounts usually preferred tionof new varieties will not slow down the byregional (although no suchstudspecialists' rapidpace of science, butit will avoidadding ies arecitedand no evidence forthe presented to themany ruins alleged yetanother theory existing preference). of premature theories. Before scientific imagmainobjections to NSP is One of Street's it is far that ining plausible evolutionary scenarios, 'itsetthestyle for work... in itsuse future it is that of segmentary from first what absurd to try to define lineage theory'(1990: 247), and is supposed to evolvein time. Instead ofimag- thatBarth's thatthetribe is a deassumption forcognition, for scent a genesis forlanguage, ining dominant fora sur'has remained group tooluse andfor socialrelations, itis notunsci- prisingly succeeding long time', influencing entific to try new unitsof analysis anthropologists to imagine (Street1990: 249). (This is thatredistribute the definition of thesefour quite different fromStreet's[1992] replyto realms which, after all,might well be artefacts Barth, in whichhe disingenuously says: ofourreasoning. I myself am interested in this It is notso much that Barth failed to 'question and I have foundgreatcomfort, hisassumptions enterprise tribe isa descent group' the that wild facts and some manyinteresting insights as Wright I quote, in thepassage since asserts in this book. I thinkthat the readersof with which he is conthat is thevery question to thebookandits thecontributors Man/J1RAI, he set cerned. wasprecisely that Butourpoint reviewer cansayso without being castigated for ofthedebate between hisagenda inthecontext or for dantheir lackof scientific their rigour, and other waysof theory segmentary lineage gerouspolitical leanings(I dislikepostmod- explaining andpolitical segmentation splitting, I hope, ernism butitis nota socialstigma nor, authority. is socialanthropology). Therearemany houses Readers may draw their own conclusions in the house of Science.To closewithSerres and that aboutthisauto-revisionism.) (1974:259): 'Thereis onlyone myth, cometo his (1990)position How does Street is theideaofa science freed from all myths'. lineof segmentary NSP was an example that BRUNO LATOUR to his own testimony According age theory? des Paris Ecoke Nationake Mines, Super'eure the textual eth(1990: 256), '[b]y examining thereader of Street's presIn fact, nography'. to any textual is not treated analysis Landau,M. 1991.Narrative ofhuman evolution.entation Street whatsoever ofNSPF Instead, (1990:248) New Haven:YaleUniv.Press. several comments whichdo not general B. & S. Strum1986. Human social offers Latour, to Barth Eickelman's from (1981) introorigins. Pleasetellus another origin story! refer and number of textbook a quotesfrom ductory Struct. Social J. biol. 9, 169-87. 1986 unpublished thesis,some of M. 1974. La traduction Serres, (Hermes 3). Paris: Wright's whichassert NSP is baseduponsegmenthat Editions de Minuit. ReadingStreet's(1990) tarylineagetheory. to believe that there is no reason presentation, minddonea close he hasevenreadNSP,never tribesin Iran and beyond examinationof the Understanding text. in the mid-1960s, I As a graduate student The exchange ofviewson tribal studies in Iran drewupon NSP as one case in a comparative by Street, Barth, Wright and Ganzer (Street study of thepolitical of nomadic organization