Abstract
This paper reconsiders the ontological modes of anthropology from Tim Ingold’s perspective of “emergent properties” of the forms and capacities of organisms, and Nikolaas Tinbergen’s perspective of ontogeny. Chapter 1 examines anthropologist Philippe Descola’s matrix of four modes of ontology (Totemism, Animism, Naturalism, and Analogyism), consisting of physicality and interiority, in contrast to Tinbergen’s matrix of four biological propositions, and the possibility of understanding the anthropological ontology in an integrated manner. Descola criticizes the dualism of the modern scientific view of nature—the universality of the biological basis and the diversity of internal natures found in animals, humans, and others—and presents a perspective that overcomes the mind-body dualism that has existed since René Descartes—a mechanistic view of organisms and humans with rational consciousness. However, ethnographic sources supporting this picture have been questioned in various ways. This paper takes up the representation of the Hanuman Langur (Semnopithecus entellus) in India as a case study to clarify the possibility of rethinking the relationship between animals and humans. It contrasts various dimensions from the point of contention over the boundary between the two concerning Ingold’s perspective of “relational thinking” that manifests at the intersection of diverse species. Chapter 2 examines the universality of the biological basis as perceived by natural scientists and the contested issues surrounding the autonomous and strategic behavior of individuals, particularly the debate over the reproductive behavior and infanticide of Hanuman Langur as a wild monkey. Chapter 3 reveals the social and ideological foundations as conditions for a reciprocal relationship between humans and animals, based on the representations of the monkey god Hanuman and the Monkey King Sugriva in the Hindu mythology of the Ramayana. Based on the above considerations, the final chapter examines the possibility of integrating ontological modes and summarizes the discussion.
