I am finishing a draft of a paper with Juliette de Wolfe on conceits and autism. It ends with my current favorite Garfinkelian conceit: driving down the highway of life with an immortal cohort. In the paper where he talks about immortality and highways, he writes that “immortal is a metaphor for … an “assemblage of haecceities” (2002: 92). Ray McDermott to whom I had sent an earlier draft underlined the last word and wrote “explained?”. It made me acknowledge to myself that I could not quite explain the word though I knew it had to do with the latin for ‘this’ and was related to everything Garfinkel has written about indexicality. So I searched Wikipedia (no shame!). The first indexes in the entry are to Duns Scotus and Peirce. Then comes the references to Garfinkel with a quote from Rawls “Haecceities is one of the many words that Garfinkel has adopted over the years to indicate the importance of the infinite contingencies in both situations and practices” (2003). So, simply (?) put, changing the clothes of a tantruming child in a public park is, always and necessarily, a unique act that has never occurred and will never recur. There will never be another time when this child will be changed by this mother in this park in front of these onlookers. There will never be another time when this Rosa will say “I could read it!” in this reading group (McDermott passim). There will never be another time when some Mexican migrants develop this glossary (Kalmar 2001).
So what is the point of reporting this? As Kalmar reminded us when he lectured at Teachers College in the Spring 2012, the Camden glossaries are unique, but they are also an instance of what many other people (missionaries, linguists, etc.) did when faced with another language they had to learn as they attempted to survive in that moment.
So, this is another musing about ethnographic methodology and its usefulness in, precisely, this political moment in the history of anthropology and its relationship to the State.
But, as I half day dreamed about the quote (which I may initially have chosen because it included the work ‘metaphor’ which was then the key word in the evolving paper), I noticed that Garfinkel wrote about “assemblage” and wondered whether this is the recently famous word. Did he get it from Latour? from Rawls (who would have gotten it from Deleuze)? Anyway, it fits. This event is made up of these matters (people, things, etc.) immortalized into “??????.”
What exactly is the word to be used? (Suspense!)
I was working on the paper when, last week, I taught one of my favorite pieces from one of our disciplinary grandmothers: Ruth Benedict’s “Configurations of culture in North America” (1932). Note that ‘configuration’ is pluralized, not ‘culture’ (Benedict is a Boasian, not a Geertzian). What struck me this time is her use of the unusual gerund “islanding” to evoke the historical reality that differentiation (say in death rituals–her main examples) is not based on geographical isolation (see also Louis Dumont on the ideological differentiations between France and Germany in the 19th century (1994 )). Burying a close relative among the Zuñi requires different displays than it requires among the Cheyenne. We were taught in graduate school to ridicule Benedict from tagging the first set of displays as “Apollonian” while the others would be “Dionysian” and to suggest that these ??? somehow “explained” the displays as if they were psychological causes. I now read these labels as temporary heuristics that may have helped at the time establish the unique this-ness of a historical moment in the plains and high plateaus of a continent when human beings lived side by side, pushed and pulled each other, faced new conditions (e.g. the horse), and assembled themselves and their practices into some immortal thing (configuration, culture, pattern, epoch, system, [your word for a historically produced, powerfully enforced, differentiated and differentiating unique thing]).
Now, I have complained elsewhere that Garfinkel does not have an explicit theory of culture, unless, as I suggest, facing immortal assembling of haecceities is precisely such a theory–which is my point.
Thus, our scientific task is more akin to physicists disputing “gravity” (islanding, culture) than to medical researchers looking for the cause of autism, or the better therapy (technology, development).
[See also an earlier post on the Boasian revolt against classifications by function and causes]