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.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.