This essay explores the intellectual convergence between Roger Caillois and Helmuth Plessner in order to outline the hypothesis of a “diagonal anthropology,” a perspective able to cross disciplinary boundaries. The first part examines Caillois’s role as a cultural organizer at UNESCO and his development of “diagonal sciences,” conceived as a transversal knowledge aimed at uncovering “deep kinships” among natural and cultural phenomena. Drawing on examples from biology, physics, mythology, and aesthetics, Caillois presents nature as a field of unexpected correspondences that challenge conventional disciplinary partitions. Mimetism becomes a key notion linking insects, animals, and humans through disguise, camouflage, play, and masks. The second part analyzes Plessner’s philosophical anthropology, centered on the concept of “eccentric positionality” and on imitation as a constitutive process of human identity and social roles. For Plessner, human existence is mediated by others, and imitation, representation, and role-playing are essential mechanisms of social life. Comparing Caillois and Plessner reveals both convergences and divergences: both reject utilitarian and teleological interpretations, emphasize the creative and ambivalent dimension of mimesis, and describe human beings as relational and plural. Diagonal anthropology emerges as a framework capable of reconnecting natural and human sciences through a comparative method that illuminates continuities between animals, humans, and culture.
Il saggio ricostruisce l’incontro intellettuale tra Roger Caillois e Helmuth Plessner per delineare l’ipotesi di un’“antropologia diagonale”, capace di attraversare i confini disciplinari. La prima parte analizza il ruolo di Caillois come organizzatore culturale dell’Unesco e teorico delle “scienze diagonali”, un sapere trasversale fondato sulla ricerca di “parentele profonde” tra fenomeni naturali e culturali. Attraverso esempi tratti dalla biologia, dalla fisica, dalla mitologia e dall’estetica, Caillois mostra come la natura riveli connessioni inattese, capaci di rompere le barriere tra le discipline. Il mimetismo viene così interpretato come fenomeno che unisce regni diversi, dagli insetti agli esseri umani, includendo travestimento, camouflage, gioco e maschera. La seconda parte esamina l’antropologia filosofica di Plessner, centrata sulla nozione di “posizionalità eccentrica” e sulla funzione dell’imitazione nella costituzione dell’identità umana e dei ruoli sociali. Per Plessner, l’essere umano esiste attraverso un rapporto mediato con sé e con l’altro, in cui imitazione, rappresentazione e ruolo diventano strumenti fondamentali della vita sociale. La comparazione tra Caillois e Plessner mostra convergenze e divergenze: entrambi rifiutano letture teleologiche e utilitaristiche, riconoscono la dimensione creativa e ambivalente della mimesis e descrivono l’umano come essere relazionale e plurale. L’antropologia diagonale emerge così come prospettiva capace di unire le scienze umane e naturali, attraverso un metodo comparativo che illumina le continuità tra animale, umano e cultura.
Borsari, A. (2025). Antropologia diagonale? Un’ipotesi critica. Modena : Stem Mucchi Editore.
Antropologia diagonale? Un’ipotesi critica
Andrea Borsari
2025
Abstract
This essay explores the intellectual convergence between Roger Caillois and Helmuth Plessner in order to outline the hypothesis of a “diagonal anthropology,” a perspective able to cross disciplinary boundaries. The first part examines Caillois’s role as a cultural organizer at UNESCO and his development of “diagonal sciences,” conceived as a transversal knowledge aimed at uncovering “deep kinships” among natural and cultural phenomena. Drawing on examples from biology, physics, mythology, and aesthetics, Caillois presents nature as a field of unexpected correspondences that challenge conventional disciplinary partitions. Mimetism becomes a key notion linking insects, animals, and humans through disguise, camouflage, play, and masks. The second part analyzes Plessner’s philosophical anthropology, centered on the concept of “eccentric positionality” and on imitation as a constitutive process of human identity and social roles. For Plessner, human existence is mediated by others, and imitation, representation, and role-playing are essential mechanisms of social life. Comparing Caillois and Plessner reveals both convergences and divergences: both reject utilitarian and teleological interpretations, emphasize the creative and ambivalent dimension of mimesis, and describe human beings as relational and plural. Diagonal anthropology emerges as a framework capable of reconnecting natural and human sciences through a comparative method that illuminates continuities between animals, humans, and culture.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


