The articles gathered here share two objectives: to denounce ethnocentrism that would affect ethnology, and demonstrate that the absence of state in primitive societies is not desired but suffered, unconsciously. If the arguments of the author are therefore critical that the approach of his colleagues, the central thesis of his book clearly reveals less convincing. And to my great regret, I am not sure why.
I would tend to explain my embarrassment by the occasional slip reasoning, ethnological analysis to philosophical reflection. The most striking example is the chapter on the "philosophy of the Indian leadership", which attempts to define the sphere in which evolves the power of leaderless Amerindian primitive societies. The reasoning progresses through a succession of facts and rigorous deductions, a real methodological model. However, when it reaches its peak, that is to say to the general conclusion that states the essence of Indian chiefs, Clastres emits a thesis - the coercive political power as it flourished in the West is a trick of nature to interfere in the negation of its own essence, that culture - that seems to come out of nowhere, even as its innovative character and the controversy would earn him a much more reasoned treatment. The highest point is only vaguely connected to following rigorous deductions above. It follows a vague impression of sloppy, harming the author's project, which is still to convince his reader ...
It is indeed in the conclusion of his texts "political" as Clastres does not convince me, the conclusion is insufficiently reasoned (as in "exchange and power: philosophy of Indian chiefs") or vague, leaving to a later study never came - and for good reason - the task of making his final point (as in "Society against the State").
Other texts, less clearly focused on the political phenomenon, taking place in this collection. If you feel the same political problems, while detectable in watermarks, the author of some lines of introduction would have been welcome to serve as a link between articles dealing with such different points. It is also sometimes forced to wait for an article to identify what it wants relevant in the collection - "? What the Indians laugh" I think And the limits of this book containing the writings we perceive at once that had initially probably not meant to be together, even though Pierre Clastres has treated the ends: the first study, "Copernicus and the Wild" is act as a great introduction ethnological project in question, while "Society against the State" means a kind of opening, which leaves certainly hungry, but concludes that we have just read, promising something else. Between these ends, and with rare exceptions, nothing justifies such a study follows another. It seems that the chronological order of publication has served roughly guide to the composition.
Despite these weaknesses, the author gives us meaningful reflections on matters of appearance as far as humor, the prophetic function, the gendered social division, or the role of torture; one learns amounts of interesting things, and we understand how practical it seems render meaningless by placing them under the vocables "tradition" and "custom" are indeed accurate and important functions in the company's life and how it seems to have a flawless domination over the individual. Of course, as I mentioned above, not everything is equally convincing.
It is also striking that the vocabulary and analyzes of Clastres reveal a Marxist reading grid, although it is not orthodox Marxism, even though the author seems to defend. It is repeatedly question "superstructure" and "infrastructure"; in the last chapter, Clastres reverse chronology of Marxist alienation, political saying before the economic welfare. Defending, through the Indian examples, the idea of the existence of stateless societies, and affirming repeatedly the harmful nature of the latter, the author seems to agree with the terms of the communist project: a society without a State is only an instrument of domination of one class over another. The narrow definition of the state as Clastres gets Max Weber, the owner of the "legitimate violence" goes in the same direction, even as he writes on page 40: "[stateless societies] have sensed very early that transcendence of power for the group contains a fatal risk that the principle of external authority and creator of its own legality is a challenge to the culture itself; it is the intuition of this threat that determined the depth of their political philosophy. " And from there, the idea that would Clastres succumbed to his fascination for his subject (fascination that we would struggle to blame him) as to magnify these Native American tribes facing unequal and coercive Western culture . If this charge is no longer addressed him today, I could not help myself, during my reading, thinking that Clastres were to consider the state as an abomination, and that its analysis of Amerindian societies that judgment was colored, reverse the one he criticized his colleagues. But it is after all only a detail, most residing in the facts and the depth of analysis that is made.
I also have a few reproaches addressed to the editor. "Society against the State" appeared here over 30 years, which would have us assert a critical edition, placing the book in the debates of his time describing the fate of theses presented (Clastres he had disciples? How thesis has it been received? Do the research since validated or invalidated his stance? What day of the Berkeley School? etc.), specifying the vague references - for a neophyte - of the author, etc. However, Minuit will give us the original text. Therefore difficult to assess what is offered to our judgment ... To learn more, we are forced to refer to manuals of political science and political sociology.
We will surely have difficulty to understand, after this criticism, why I awarded 4 stars in this book.
I found the thought of Pierre Clastres at the University there is a year and a half, she had challenged and fascinated me, and I instinctively lent it a depth of analysis and judgment. Normally, the transition of the preview that is a course at the thought materialized fully in the work should have been completed to bring completely my membership. That, in my case, the path was exactly the opposite says a lot about my disappointment. The argument failed to convince me; it seemed to me to sin in the conclusions. Of course, this feeling can come from the nature of the work, doubling unfinished.
However, despite its many limitations, "Society against the State" is a wealth of information, from detailed analyzes and invites us to question our way of thinking about politics. In this sense, it is a very profitable reading, you can not regret it. I therefore recommend anyway.
