Clastres "de-substantializes" the State, which is not "the Elysées, the White House, the Kremlin", but "an actualization of a relation of power". There is no reason, therefore, to believe that, in a Durkheimian mood, he has reified the society. Even though he does not make use of the concept, it seems to us that there is already a "sociality" in Clastres: thus, the sociality against the State. In the three divisions of this study, we show the role the "society", the "State" and the "against" play in Clastres' writings. This way, we aim to demonstrate that, in his ethnography, we find indications as to how to deal with some of the dilemmas of anthropology, such as: How can we avoid the methodological individualism without being grasped by a transcendental holism or vice-versa? How can we erect models of intentionality with no subject? How can we conceive of social relations with no society? And finally, how does the "objectivity" of sociality work through the "subjectivity" of persons-in-interaction?
Anthropological Theory; Political Anthropology; Pierre Clastres; Sociality