them by telling i.e. stories that identify fractal qualities, thus fractal stories undermining dualisms such as micro/macro, self/other and one/many. Fractal infrastructures In Marilyn Strathern uses the fractal image to demonstrate Partial Connections some of her thoughts on the field of anthropology. She points out that anthropologists are caught in a sterile discussion about whether the micro or the macro perspective is between accusing one better: ”[A]nthropologists alternate another now of myopia, now of This distinction is panoptics” (2004: xv). according to Strathern rooted in a misguided Western understanding of phenomena as consisting of parts and wholes that determine one another. She argues that neither the micro perspective (e.g. description of rituals), nor the macro perspective (e.g. description of cultures) are privileged positions. No matter what we focus on, we are faced with equally complex phenomena and an equal loss of information (cf. the magnification of the Mandelbrot set above). an increase in the magnitude of detail, the quantity of ”Despite information an anthropologist derives from what s/he is observing may remain the same. Observation thus remains a kind of constant background to the proliferation of (2004: xxi). forms” We thus never have access to either the axiomatic parts or the totality of a phenomenon. We are only ever partially connected to the object of our study through the specific scale or scales on which we study it. In Partial Connections, Strathern illustrates this point by descriptions of examining anthropologists’ cultures, cultural artifacts and rituals from societies in Papua New Guinea (PNG). Among other things she describes how and noses) ‘face designs’ (eyes, mouths seem to turn up everywhere across PNG societies on effigies, dance shields, drums etc. and thus seem to hold the cultures together. However upon further
them by telling fractal stories i.e. stories that identify fractal qualities, thus undermining dualisms such as micro/macro, self/other and one/many. Fractal infrastructures In Partial Connections Marilyn Strathern uses the fractal image to demonstrate some of her thoughts on the field of anthropology. She points out that anthropologists are caught in a sterile discussion about whether the micro or the macro perspective is better: ”[A]nthropologists alternate between accusing one another now of myopia, now of panoptics” (2004: xv). This distinction is according to Strathern rooted in a misguided Western understanding of phenomena as consisting of parts and wholes that determine one another. She argues that neither the micro perspective (e.g. description of rituals), nor the macro perspective (e.g. description of cultures) are privileged positions. No matter what we focus on, we are faced with equally complex phenomena and an equal loss of information (cf. the magnification of the Mandelbrot set above). ”Despite an increase in the magnitude of detail, the quantity of information an anthropologist derives from what s/he is observing may remain the same. Observation thus remains a kind of constant background to the proliferation of forms” (2004: xxi). We thus never have access to either the axiomatic parts or the totality of a phenomenon. We are only ever partially connected to the object of our study through the specific scale or scales on which we study it. In Partial Connections, Strathern illustrates this point by examining anthropologists’ descriptions of cultures, cultural artifacts and rituals from societies in Papua New Guinea (PNG). Among other things she describes how ‘face designs’ (eyes, mouths and noses) seem to turn up everywhere across PNG societies on effigies, dance shields, drums etc. and thus seem to hold the cultures together. However upon further