ABSTRACT One way of characterizing the ontological turn in anthropology is the effort to transform philosophical anthropology into anthropological philosophy—or anthropology into philosophy. This effort proceeds upon the premise that to critique philosophical representationalism is to critique the entire rationalist enterprise. It is as a result of this coupling that some OTers suggest that a permanently decolonized philosophy becomes indistinguishable from post-representationalist anthropology. Curiously, it is by thinking with Gilles Deleuze that they conclude, on the one hand, that to decolonize (...) anthropology is to de-representationalize it, and, on the other, that to decolonize philosophy is therefore to anthropologize it (since, on their logic, de-representationalizing means de-philosophizing). To turn to ontology means “thinking immanence” not, pace Deleuze, as philosophy, but beyond philosophy. This article argues that the supersessionist claim is incoherent precisely insofar as this coupling is unwarranted. To provide a counterinstance, the article suggests how thinking with Alfred North Whitehead decouples the critique of representationalism from the critique of rationalism. One implication of this work is to model a speculative philosophy that can be responsive to postcolonial concerns about representationalism without thereby becoming functionally indistinct from anthropological method. (shrink)