CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol. 30, Issue 2, pp. 245–256, ISSN 0886-7356, online ISSN 1548-1360. by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.14506/ca30.2.07 Openings and Retrospectives RELATIONAL SPACE: An Earthly Installation DEBBORA BATTAGLIA Mount Holyoke College DAVID VALENTINE University of Minnesota VALERIE OLSON University of California, Irvine When we were approached to curate an anthropological opening about life above Earth, we asked ourselves: What if we think about this piece as a mock- up installation, made to scale, pointing to particular and also to general values (Strathern 2004), exposing anthropological questions, concepts, and debates to the environments of outer space and space-on-Earth, a piece not anchored or stratified, but zooming in and out, coming and going from Earth, multisited from the start? Continuing along these lines: What if we think about Earth as itself an exhibit to the cosmic, a performative complex, exceptional (as far as we know) in the universe? Of course, the conventional anthropological response to excep- tionalism is to historicize and contextualize the object. But thinking with whole Earth, in particular, presents us with a problem—and a provocation—in regard to context since, until recently, human attachments to the planet’s surface have been the ultimate grounds of their actions, ideas, and relations, as well as of anthropologists’ analyses of these.
Transcript
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol. 30, Issue 2, pp. 245–256, ISSN 0886-7356, online ISSN 1548-1360. � by theAmerican Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.14506/ca30.2.07
Openings and Retrospectives
RELATIONAL SPACE: An Earthly Installation
DEBBORA BATTAGLIAMount Holyoke CollegeDAVID VALENTINEUniversity of MinnesotaVALERIE OLSONUniversity of California, Irvine
When we were approached to curate an anthropological opening about lifeabove Earth, we asked ourselves: What if we think about this piece as a mock-up installation, made to scale, pointing to particular and also to general values(Strathern 2004), exposing anthropological questions, concepts, and debates tothe environments of outer space and space-on-Earth, a piece not anchored orstratified, but zooming in and out, coming and going from Earth, multisited fromthe start? Continuing along these lines: What if we think about Earth as itself anexhibit to the cosmic, a performative complex, exceptional (as far as we know)in the universe? Of course, the conventional anthropological response to excep-tionalism is to historicize and contextualize the object. But thinking with wholeEarth, in particular, presents us with a problem—and a provocation—in regardto context since, until recently, human attachments to the planet’s surface havebeen the ultimate grounds of their actions, ideas, and relations, as well as ofanthropologists’ analyses of these.
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 30:2
246
This is not to say that humans were grounded before Sputnik: since EmileDurkheim, we have understood that humans incorporate entire universes in theirworlds. The totem is a cosmic figure; shamans travel in ways that defy gravity,atmosphere, and physics. But as some humans have increasingly used robotic andremote explorations of the solar system and universe, from Earth’s present andits surface domains and from craft more aligned to the ordinary world’s order,openings are emerging to imaginative engagements with radical new ways ofworld-making and a reimagination of the planet as embedded in a wider spaceecology. And as some people begin to leave Earth on spacecraft built to withstandand even embrace what they have learned of space, they are also faced with newsets of relations, new kinds of becoming, new natures. About 540 humans fromthirty-five nations have left Earth in this manner (we’ll get back to this), but thesemostly-low-Earth-orbit forays have also activated enormous cultural and engi-neering productivity toward far more expansive visions of large-scale human set-tlements on the moon, Mars, or in rotating free-space colonies. These journeys—real and imaginary—compel critical revisits to familiar frontier narratives andnew ethical guidelines for peaceful and environmentally accountable approachesto extraterrestrial collaboration by spacefaring entities (private and state-based).In short, outer space is being tentatively engaged by (and engaging) cultural valuesand varieties of sociality, in ways that require new anthropological questions.
This very human openness to new horizons of inquiry may not seem im-mediately apparent. Space’s preponderance of lifelessness appears from an Earth-bound perspective not to be ecology without nature (Morton 2007) so much asenvironment without ecology. But we would argue that emphasizing the over-whelming absence of life in “space itself” (Battaglia 2012a) only naturalizes claimsabout the political and ecological irrelevance to Earth of outer space, despite itsmaterial, ecological, and technological connections to and relations with Earth.To highlight this point, we can take a detour out to where Earth’s last wisp oflife-impacted spherical atmospheric layer ends and infinite, polymorpous space—and its multiple natures—begins. This point seems to present a hard material andtheoretical boundary between the Earth-space environment. Terrestrial life formsthat travel into space via Earth-made spacecraft live as ecological outliers. Humansand select species in built vehicle environments in low-Earth orbit are tetheredto earthly life-support supplies; terrestrial microbes that ride off with roboticspacecraft die or survive under siege from the force fields of other cosmic natures.The search for extraterrestrial life becomes also a search to see whether biologycan ever be theorized as non-terrestrial and fundamentally relative (Helmreich
RELATIONAL SPACE
247
2009, 2012; Messeri 2011). As a proposition, life beyond Earth sits at the inter-section of the technologically extreme, the impossible, the imaginable, the unen-countered, and the terrestrially irrelevant. In space, life and death lose an equiv-alent presence with the non-living (Clark 2011; Farman 2013).
Yet some people and other living subjectivities have gone to space—are onorbit right now—and they, and the visions of space settlement that their activitiesactivate in others, ask us to start raising new questions, ahead of time (just googleSpaceX, Mars One, the 100 Year Starship program). These questions areprompted in part by new considerations of scale—spatial, temporal, and quan-titative—that mark a shift in register of anthropological concerns with particularsand universals (Choy 2011), expanding our discipline’s ongoing epistemic exper-iment. Our qualification above—“some humans”—is a case in point, as those whohave traveled to space so far have clustered (racially, geographically, culturally)with those elites formed in the violent crucibles of colonialism and capitalistglobalization. One consequence of this phenomenon for anthropologists is a sus-picion that the move to space, now and in the future, constitutes a movement ofterrestrial stratified and spatialized socioeconomic and political relations into thecosmos. And of course, the desire for a “settlement” of the solar system cannotescape those histories. But this is not a simple translation (Battaglia 2012b); theseformations and relations are thrown open in imaginations of space habitation bythe radically different and multiple natures of space and by massive distanceswhere Earth becomes a blue dot in other skies—or in imaginaries of travel tofar-distant planets like Mars, not directly visible at all.
Whatever sociopolitical arrangements may take shape in putative futureoccupations, outer space makes a difference. For example, the upper limits ofthe physical universe prohibit the collapsing of time into space, so fundamentalto the development of globalized capitalism. On the other hand, critical consid-erations of planetarity (Spivak 2003) in relation to globality invite us into a scalartemporal frame in which, by engaging Earth’s 4.5-billion years, all human his-tories—evolution, the Internet, colonialism, tea time—can easily be collapsedinto a metaphorical blink, threatening their wholesale erasure as discrete andordered events. The urgency of thinking through whole Earth (this time fromboth the real and the discursively produced perspective of anthropocenic concern)also inevitably provokes idioms of quantity: billions and trillions of tons, dollars,liters, organisms, locations—and people. This means that at the planetary scale,species (human and non-human) become relevant again, reformatting human his-
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 30:2
248
tories—individual biographies, the troubled histories of communities, racial clas-sification—into actuarial facts (Malm and Hornberg 2013).
Thus a space-inclusive anthropology, and the scales and relations it reveals,requires questioning how the anthropological, social, biological, environmental,and ecological relate conceptually, but also how they scale with and against oneanother. Instead of assuming that the relationship of the anthropological and theecological ends at Earth’s high atmosphere because it is a natural boundary forearthly life forms, our data open to the ways in which Earth and space areconnected through non-living spatial, environmental, and ecological connections,and provoke new ways of seeing terrestrial arrangements and imagining how theymay work out in space—without presuming their outcomes. From this point ofdeparture, seeing Earth through human eyes or other human-designed apparatusesof perception from outside its atmosphere should indeed put us on alert for anytrace of the renaturalization of humanness (and human difference) through theframe of species, potentially eviscerating the hard-won recognition of the sortingwork done by species as a concept in the long history of terrestrial migrations andcolonialisms.
Further, it can open up possibilities for different forms of difference, areconfiguration of what may seem alike, of what we might understand as partic-ular, and what could emerge as universal. The challenge we see is both to holdonto what our analyses of racialization and colonialism, for example, have shownus, while allowing ourselves, simultaneously, to imagine, critique, and engagethose new forms—liberatory or exploitative—that could emerge in the encounterof humans and the ecologies on which they depend in the multiple natures ofouter space (Anker 2005).
All this is ethnographic through and through—not simply a new context tobe accounted for, but one starting point among many in estrangement fromhome—and even the creation of new kinds of homes where Earth becomes onlyone of multiple places from which to look to other subjectivized places, no longerprivileged by its status as an origin site. Again, these stances enable us to thinkanthropologically through and beyond the limits of our planet’s cultured-naturalatmosphere and what it has produced. In effect, people’s investments of intellec-tual, affective, and material resources for moving off Earth—embodied, via re-mote-sensing, or in dreams—provoke, in no uncertain terms, a recasting of cen-tral (and deeply connected) arguments concerning discourses of inter-beingrelations of nature (where space natures bring cultures up against limits of sov-ereignty, colonization, resource management, even human material attachments
RELATIONAL SPACE
249
to the sun and its environments) or of the human (as post-earthling kinship acrossspecies figures alternatives to the “human-machine partnership” [Vakoch 2011] oforbital space stations’ life-support systems).
Figure 1. Working on the International Space Station. Photo by Terry W. Virts, posted on hisTwitter account (https://twitter.com/AstroTerry), February 21, 2015.
Further, as the anthropological environment opens out to high atmosphericecologies where humans, animals, plants, technologies, chemistries, and genera-tivity in its broadest senses travel, interact, and loop (e.g., Choy 2011; Raffles2011; Lahsen 2004), we are moved to query the limits of our disciplinary methodsand models, indeed, to ask how method or model come to make sense in spaceenvironments in which varied natures open up the terrestrial presumptions oftheory itself.
The phenomena of inhabited-space-station interiorities make the point.There, the posited ontological turn in anthropology is productively challenged bycrew members’ descriptions of the work of living onboard an “artificial planet”(Lebedev 1988) where technoscientific curiosity and “sci-aesthetic” tinkering (Pet-tit 2012) reveal the limits in situ of prototypes, analog environments, and engi-neering ontologies. It follows that philosophical speculations presenting orbitalspace stations as archetypally mediatic life-support systems for a speculative future(Sloterdijk 2009a, 2009b) are historicized and personalized by evidence of the
value added by local extraterrestrial knowledge. That system’s artificially pro-duced microgravity interior activates a de-exoticized perspectivism (Viveiros deCastro 2012)—complexifying human wayfinding. Further, international scientificprograms that skyhook the work of the United Nations and other internationalbodies charged to craft legal guidelines for peaceful uses of outer space, explicateanthropology’s argument for hospitality’s place at the core of ethnographic theory(Candea and da Col 2012), properly in tune with “hostipitality” (Derrida 2000)for recognizing space-normal conditions of nature-culture exchange. Politicizedand gendered cosmologies move into range of one another from as far away asthe moon and an island in the southwest Pacific, provoking negotiations of irrec-oncilable understandings of “geontologies” (Povinelli 2014) and positioning the“cosmos as commons” (Battaglia 2014a), though without the easy presumptionsof planar coordinates.
In addition, some of anthropology’s hardest-working conceptual tools—con-text, identity, kinship—are submitted to the irritations of fluidist terms of refer-ence (Connolly 2011; Helmreich 2009), as humans who recognize themselves as“no longer an earthling” (Linenger 2003) form affective attachments (Hustak andMyers 2012) to things like space-based plant biology experiments and other livingspecies, making an argument in favor of “analogic affect” (Battaglia 2014c) byexposing the mutual vulnerability of both parties to the conditions of experimen-tation. A cosmopolitical concern (cf. Latour 2004) with purity and pollution acti-vates differently when what, on Earth, may be predictable pollutants become dif-ferent kinds of unpredictable agents that act in unexpected ways—as, for example,in the parasitic relations of human moon walkers and moon dust and the technol-ogy-imbricated stories they perform of forward-and-back contamination.
That said, terrestrially life-threatening outer space is physically and sociallyconnected with terrestrial spaces and extends anthropological research environ-ments. Anthropologists have examined how socially remote space-based technol-ogies shape earthly spatial and environmental politics (Redfield 2000; Lahsen2004); how cosmos, universe, and exoplanets become experienced as places inastronomical and geological sciences (Messeri 2011; Hoeppe 2012; Valentine2012); how asteroids, comets, and space weather become targets for environ-mental regulation and global political-ecological action (Olson 2012); and howmultinational plans for cleaning up and establishing accountability for orbital de-bris in an increasingly polluted low-Earth orbit produce new innovations aroundnotions of property, pollution, and agency (Battaglia 2014b; Rand 2014). Takentogether, these examples point to the bonding agents that intertwine and
RELATIONAL SPACE
251
strengthen between the environmental and ecological problems of Earth and spaceinfrastructure building. Engineers and scientists in both domains must contendwith managing invisible but powerful fundamental features of cosmos-as-environ-ment that impact living–non-living dynamics as infra-ecological conditions: grav-ity, pressure, non-anthropogenic radiation. Moreover, in considering these link-ages, anthropology is drawn into new relations with the biomedical and politicaldimensions of human spaceflight engineering and design (Olson 2010; de Mon-chaux 2011) and the politics of controlling pressure and gravity in water engi-neering (de Laet and Mol 2000; Anand 2011; Ballestero 2012).
Moving back in toward Earth, closer to the ways in which the everydayterrestrial world is drawn into relation with space, anthropology is also uniquelypoised to address how increasing numbers of telecommunication satellites—ca-pable of slipping from their assigned orbits and colliding, or of becoming objectsof a new space arms race—position us in new ways. We are drawn to considerthe world from a perspective that does not presume ground to attend to (stateand local) space-based satellite apparatuses of in/security, and to Cold War hold-overs for managing extreme weather (Masco 2010) or theaters of war (Berland2009). Anthropology is poised to consider how the operation of commercial andstate programs of technoscientific exploration, resource extraction, and surveil-lance seek to find both permission and accountability for their activities. Fundinginstitutions, the fine print of insurance and space-law documents, heritage-siteclaims to the moon and other extraterrestrial treasures, are enmeshed by pressuresto ensure both the peaceful uses of outer space and—from the perspective ofspace entrepreneurs—the useful pieces of outer space. As the possibilities of spaceexploration intensify along these lines, we are moved to reevaluate Homo faber’scapacities for making worlds differently (Latour 2002), focusing anthropology onquestions of which values are being translated into space and back again.
The gaps in knowledge that emerge from such realms of inquiry—and inthe theories and questions we employ to produce knowledge—point to a spacethat resists a simple reduction to terrestrial analogs even as we must recognizetheir analogic power. They move us beyond exceptionalist Cold War narrativesof (white) settlers on the frontier, or beyond U.S. American fears of Soviets (ornowadays, China or India) out to conquer the solar system. They ask for morethan critiques of “the right stuff” posturing of American cowboy astronaut indi-vidualism, of the “New Soviet Man” (Gerovich 2007) embodied by cosmonauthero archetypes or, in more recent times, of corporatism (Launius 2008) and“capitalism in space” (Valentine 2012). In doing so, an encounter with the different
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 30:2
252
natures of space reveals how people might model human-machine relations inways demanded by space, and thus foreground the creative excess of curiosityand innovation. Both conceptually and materially attending to space-in-itself—and not presuming that terrestrial models and theories can do so without under-going their own translation—launches an epistemological challenge to anthro-pology (Corsin-Jimenez 2013). But it also offers fresh possibilities of a newmultisited anthropology by way of conceiving and taking seriously the “as if”futures of human and non-human entities and relations, on and off Earth.
We finished our first draft of this essay only days after the deadly crash ofVirgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo, a vehicle designed to take well-heeled tourists tothe Karman line, the edge of space one hundred kilometers above Earth’s surface.Part of a much broader commercial space flight industry (that includes asteroidmining and Mars settlement alongside tourism), both Virgin Galactic’s plans andthis accident, not surprisingly, activate many of our traditional anxieties—aboutcolonialism, exploitation, stratification, overreaching techno-optimism—and callson our theoretical models to account for them.
Such concerns simultaneously spiral out from and link to debates circulatingamong the Earth’s many publics, from concerns about social networking’s de-mands on people’s everyday lives to how to scale environments and shape policiesin the age of what is being called the Anthropocene to the contexts and conse-quences of space-enabled state surveillance. These tensions drive imaginations ofescape from Earth as much as they call for staying put and living within ourecological means, figured both by speculative fiction and by actual NASA filmfootage and scientific data (Battaglia 2012c).
All these responses call for an anthropology that remains mindful of itsearthly origins while opening itself up to thinking about life and non-life aboveEarth as differences that make difference—figuratively and actually.
ABSTRACTAnthropology off the Earth opens to new questions and futures for our disciplinaryproject and reach, while at the same time compelling revisits to classic sites ofanthropological inquiry and critique. Taking as a given that human labor andimagination are neither limitable to, nor severable from, terrestrial-scapes of knowl-edge and practice, we argue that conceptually and materially working with outerspace offers a unique opportunity to engage inter/disciplinary questions across manyscales: with technologies of inter-being connections and disconnections, with ap-proaches to what counts as nature and culture, and with questions concerning theoften-invisible force fields of agency and structures of power.
RELATIONAL SPACE
253
REFERENCES
Anand, Nikhil2011 “Pressure: The PoliTechnics of Water Supply in Mumbai.” Cultural Anthropology
2005 “The Ecological Colonization of Space.” Environmental History 10, no. 2: 239–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/envhis/10.2.239.
Ballestero, Andrea2012 “Transparency Short-Circuited: Laughter and Numbers in Costa Rican Water
Politics.” PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 35, no. 2: 223–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1555-2934.2012.01200.x.
Battaglia, Debbora2012a “Arresting Hospitality: The Case of the ‘Handshake in Space.’” In “The Return
to Hospitality: Strangers, Guests, and Ambiguous Encounters,” edited by MateiCandea and Giovanni da Col, issue supplement, Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute 18, no. S1: S76–S89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2012.01762.x.
2012b “Coming in at an Unusual Angle: Exo-Surprise and the FieldworkingCosmonaut.” In “Extreme: Humans at Home in the Cosmos,” edited by DebboraBattaglia, David Valentine, and Valerie A. Olson, special issue, AnthropologicalQuarterly 85, no. 4: 1045–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/anq.2012.0058.
2012c “Life as We Don’t Yet Know It: An Anthropologist’s First Contact with theScience of Weird Life.” In Imagining Outer Space: European Astroculture in theTwentieth Century, edited by Alexander Geppert, 211–23. New York: PalgraveMacmillan.
2014a “Cosmos as Commons: An Activation of Cosmic Diplomacy.” e-flux, no. 58.http://www.e-flux.com/journal/cosmos-as-commons-an-activation-of-cosmic-diplomacy/.
2014b “Cosmic Open Sourcery: Anxious Thoughts on Artifacts of False Witness andthe Hypermediacy Effect.” Paper presented at New York University Departmentof Media, Culture, and Communication, April 10.
2014c “Diary of a Space Zucchini: Ventriloquizing the Future in Outer Space.”Committee on the Anthropology of Science, Technology, and Computing(CASTAC) blog, July 7. http://blog.castac.org/2014/07/diary-of-a-space-zucchini-ventriloquizing-the-future-in-outer-space/.
Berland, Jody2009 North of Empire: Essays on the Cultural Technologies of Space. Durham, N.C.: Duke
University Press.Candea, Matei, and Giovanni da Col
2012 “The Return to Hospitality.” In “The Return to Hospitality: Strangers, Guests,and Ambiguous Encounters,” edited by Matei Candea and Giovanni da Col, issuesupplement, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 18, no. S1: S1–S19.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2012.01757.x.
Choy, Timothy2011 Ecologies of Comparison: An Ethnography of Endangerment in Hong Kong. Durham,
N.C.: Duke University Press.Clark, Nigel
2011 Inhuman Nature: Sociable Life on a Dynamic Planet. London: Sage.Connolly, William
2011 A World of Becoming. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Corsin-Jimenez, Alberto
2013 “Three Traps Many.” Paper presented at the Sawyer Seminar, “IndigenousCosmopolitics,” University of California, Davis, March 18.
2007 “‘New Soviet Man’ Inside Machine: Human Engineering, Spacecraft Design, andthe Construction of Communism.” Osiris 22:135–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/521746.
Haeuplik-Meusburger, Sandra, Carrie Paterson, Daniel Schubert, and Paul Zabel2014 “Greenhouses and their Humanizing Synergies.” Acta Astronautica 96:138–50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.11.031.Helmreich, Stefan
2009 Alien Ocean: Anthropological Voyages in Microbial Seas. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.
2012 “Extraterrestrial Relativism.” In “Extreme: Humans at Home in the Cosmos,”edited by Debbora Battaglia, David Valentine, and Valerie A. Olson, specialissue, Anthropological Quarterly 85, no. 4: 1125–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/anq.2012.0064.
Hoeppe, Gotz2012 “Astronomers at the Observatory: Place, Visual Practice, Traces.” In “Extreme:
Humans at Home in the Cosmos,” edited by Debbora Battaglia, David Valentine,and Valerie A. Olson, special issue, Anthropological Quarterly 85, no. 4: 1141–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/anq.2012.0068.
Hustak, Carla, and Natasha Myers2012 “Involutionary Momentum: Affective Ecologies and the Sciences of Plant/Insect
Masco, Joseph2010 “Bad Weather: On Planetary Crisis.” Social Studies of Science no. 1: 7–40. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312709341598.Messeri, Lisa
2011 “Placing Outer Space: An Earthly Ethnography of Other Worlds.” PhDdissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Morton, Timothy2007 Ecology Without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.Olson, Valerie
2010 “The Ecobiopolitics of Space Biomedicine.” Medical Anthropology 29, no. 2: 170–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01459741003715409.
2012 “Political Ecology in the Extreme: Asteroid Activism and the Making of anEnvironmental Solar System.” In “Extreme: Humans at Home in the Cosmos,”edited by Debbora Battaglia, David Valentine, and Valerie A. Olson, specialissue, Anthropological Quarterly 85, no. 4: 1027–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/anq.2012.0070.
Pettit, Don2012 “Letters to Earth: Astronaut Don Pettit.” http://blogs.nasa.gov/letters/.
Povinelli, Elizabeth2014 “Geontologies of the Otherwise.” In “The Politics of Ontology,” edited by Martin
Holbraad and Morten Axel Pedersen, Theorizing the Contemporary, CulturalAnthropology website, January 13. http://culanth.org/fieldsights/465-geontologies-of-the-otherwise.
Raffles, Hugh2011 Insectopedia. New York: Pantheon.
Rand, Lisa Ruth2014 “Orbital Decay: Space Junk and the Environmental Politics of the Final Frontier.”
Works-in-Progress Series presented at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum,Washington, D.C., August.
Redfield, Peter2000 Space in the Tropics: From Convicts to Rockets in French Guiana. Berkeley: University
of California Press.Sloterdijk, Peter
2009a “Strong Observation for a Space Station Philosophy.” In Native Land: Stop Eject.Paris: Foundation Cartier.
2009b “Spheres Theory: Talking to Myself About the Poetics of Space.” Harvard DesignMagazine, no.30: 1–8.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty2003 “Planetarity.” In Death of a Discipline, 71–102. New York: Columbia University
Press.Strathern, Marilyn
2004 “The Whole Person and its Artifacts.” Annual Review of Anthropology 33:1–19.http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143928.
Vakoch, Douglas A., ed.2011 Psychology of Space Exploration: Contemporary Research in Historical Perspective.
Valentine, David2012 “Exit Strategy: Profit, Cosmology, and the Future of Humans in Space.” In
“Extreme: Humans at Home in the Cosmos,” edited by Debbora Battaglia, DavidValentine, and Valerie A. Olson, special issue, Anthropological Quarterly 85, no.4: 1045–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/anq.2012.0073.
Valentine, David, Valerie A. Olson, and Debbora Battaglia2012 “Extreme: Limits and Horizons of the Once and Future Cosmos.” In “Extreme:
Humans at Home in the Cosmos,” edited by Debbora Battaglia, David Valentine,and Valerie A. Olson, special issue, Anthropological Quarterly. 85, no. 4: 1007–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/anq.2012.0066.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo2012 Cosmological Perspectivism in Amazonia and Elsewhere. Hau Masterclass Series
![space = space [ 1998 - 2003 ]](https://static.docspdf.com/doc/80x56/6333adf6ce61be0ae50ec46c/space-space-1998-2003-.jpg)
