Pierre Clastres as comparative political theorist: The democratic potential of the new political anthropology

Abstract

This article examines the political anthropological work of Pierre Clastres in light of the emergence of the subfield of comparative political theory. In particular, it argues that Clastres’ reconstruction of the political philosophy of various Amazonian societies offers an alternative model for the engagement with texts and traditions external to the history of so-called Western societies. Rejecting all impulses toward totalization – as represented, for example, in the assertion of a dialogical potential for establishing modes of intercultural exchange aimed at achieving mutual understanding – Clastres calls attention to the radical social-historical alterity of forms of society. Appreciation of this alterity not only enlarges the scope of comparative political thought to engage inherited traditions that resist assimilation into Western conversations, but also reveals an indeterminate democratic potential grounded in political creativity.

Democracy against Homo sapiens alpha: Reverse dominance and political equality in human history

“…Clastres' reflections have had a notable influence on important political theorists and philosophers, especially French, for example, Lefort, Abensour, and Gauchet (Abensour & Kupiec, 2011;Holman, 2021;Holman, et al, 2015;Moyn, 2004), and have been especially well received by disenchanted leftist authors, suspicious of state power from their insights to Soviet totalitarianism. 4 However, from the perspective of democracy, Boehm's principle of reverse dominance may be more appropriate than that of Clastres' society against the state, as it seems less restrictive and more operative.…”

“…Clastres’ reflections have had a notable influence on important political theorists and philosophers, especially French, for example, Lefort, Abensour, and Gauchet (Abensour & Kupiec, 2011; Holman, 2021; Holman, et al., 2015; Moyn, 2004), and have been especially well received by disenchanted leftist authors, suspicious of state power from their insights to Soviet totalitarianism 4…”