I begin with the commentary by João Biehl and
Sebastian Ramirez. I don’t know which is the
author, but I know that my article has not been
read as a “signifying machine,” with openness
toward “what it may tell,” or wondering “if it
works or not” (Deleuze 1990: 3–21), or simply
“with openness to the existence of a third”
(Biehl and Locke 2010: 347). Of course there is
a lack of fit between the positions I put forward
and those defended by the authors of the critique.
Although our positions may differ, they
are not necessarily incompatible: at least one of
their several “intersections and junctions”
(Biehl and Locke 2010: 347) might be revealed
through a reading that is open but not a-critical.
The divergence between the positions adopted
by the authors and those I defend is, for me, one
of the fruits of the diversity that characterizes
intellectual creativity, and in particular that of
history and anthropology.