Paper short abstract:

This paper explores human-microbe relationships, specifically the tensions between them. Drawing on ‘controlled equivocation’, it proposes a methodology for addressing these tensions, acknowledging the fundamental differences between humans and microbes and opening new avenues for collaboration.

Paper long abstract:

Since the appearance of germs theory, human-microbe relationships in Western countries have been characterised by a war-like eradication approach, associating microbes with disease. However, researchers across disciplines are becoming more and more aware of the interdependence of human and microbial worlds, adopting a more ‘probiotic’ attitude towards microbes and exploring the potential of engaging with them in research (Bradshaw, 2022; Greenhough, 2012). This does not go without problems, as 'collaborating’ with microbes is not easy or straightforward: invisible and unruly, these microscopic beings exist in a completely different scale than humans and other ‘big-like-us’ animals, living, dying, and evolving at a faster pace than our ability to engage with them. Furthermore, microbial entities are an essential part of life processes, but they can also ruin harvests, make us sick and even kill us. Addressing these tensions is crucial for successfully pursue research with microbes.

In this paper, I explore ways in which the tensions between humans and microbes could be negotiated, understanding how we can relate in our differences. For this, I draw on Viveiros de Castro’s notion of perspectivism, adapting his method of ‘controlled equivocation’ to nonhuman encounters (2004). This means asking questions such as: what does it mean for us (humans) to consider the perspective of microbes when doing research? What do we understand as ‘collaborating’ with microbes and why do we consider it collaboration? And, in what ways can developing this collaboration be mutually beneficial for living-with microbes in a post-antimicrobial world?