This article offers a description of and engagement with a number of arguments that have been framed around the notion of ‘ontological symmetry’ or the promotion of a ‘pluriverse’ over a universe. I seek, first, to explain what problems scholars are seeking to solve with these interventions; second, I point to certain missteps that have been made as part of these solutions, particularly in relation to human-centredness in conceptions of practice-based ontologies; and third, I draw attention to the dangers involved in assuming that the pluriverse will not be governed by power imbalances similar to those found in a one-world world.
BlaserM., & de la CadenaM. (Eds.). (2018). Pluriverse: Proposals for a world of many worlds. A world of many worlds (pp. 1–22). Duke University Press.
2.
ChakrabartyD. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. University Press.
3.
de la CadenaM. (2010). Indigenous cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual reflections beyond “Politics.”Cultural Anthropology, 25, 334–370.
4.
de la CadenaM., & BlaserM. (Eds.). (2018). A world of many worlds. Duke University Press.
5.
LawJ. (2015). What’s wrong with a one-world world?Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 16, 126–139.
6.
MacaulayT. B. (1935). Speeches by Lord Macaulay: With his minute on Indian education. Oxford University Press.
7.
MolA. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press.
8.
RothP. (2004). The plot against America. Houghton Mifflin.
9.
SethS. (2017). The politics of despair and the calling of history. History and Theory, 56, 241–257.
10.
SubramaniamB., FosterL., HardingS., RoyD., & TallBearK. (2016). Feminism, postcolonialism, technoscience. In FeltU. (Ed.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 407–433). MIT Press.
11.
Viveiros de CastroE. (Ed.). (2015). Perspectival anthropology and the method of controlled equivocation. The relative native: Essays on indigenous conceptual worlds (pp. 55–74). Hau Books.
