indigenous movements in latin america, 1992–2004: controversies, ironies, new directions

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

Indigenous Movements inLatin America, 1992–2004:Controversies, Ironies,New DirectionsJean E. Jackson1 and Kay B. Warren2

1Anthropology Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,Massachusetts 02139; email: [email protected] Institute of International Studies, Brown University, Providence,Rhode Island 02912-1970; email: Kay [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2005. 34:549–73

The Annual Review ofAnthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120529

Copyright c© 2005 byAnnual Reviews. All rightsreserved

0084-6570/05/1021-0549$20.00

Key Words

new social movements, cultural rights, indigenous politics, publicintellectuals, diversity versus essentialism

AbstractThis review examines literature on indigenous movements in LatinAmerica from 1992 to 2004. It addresses ethnic identity and eth-nic activism, in particular the reindianization processes occurring inindigenous communities throughout the region. We explore the im-pact that states and indigenous mobilizing efforts have had on eachother, as well as the role of transnational nongovernmental organi-zations and para-statal organizations, neoliberalism more broadly,and armed conflict. Shifts in ethnoracial, political, and cultural in-digenous discourses are examined, special attention being paid tonew deployments of rhetorics concerned with political imaginaries,customary law, culture, and identity. Self-representational strategieswill be numerous and dynamic, identities themselves multiple, fluid,and abundantly positional. The challenges these dynamics presentfor anthropological field research and ethnographic writing are dis-cussed, as is the dialogue between scholars, indigenous and not, andactivists, indigenous and not. Conclusions suggest potentially fruitfulresearch directions for the future.

549

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

Customary law:gives localauthorities rights tojudge, detain, settledisputes, establishsanctions, and punishon the basis of theirdistinctive normativesystems

(Latin American)indigenouspeoples: culturallydiverse politicalminorities who tracetheir histories andculturalidentifications beforethe conquest andcolonization of theNew World

Contents

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550DISCOURSE SHIFTS—STATE,

NATIONAL,TRANSNATIONAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . 551

DISCOURSE SHIFTS—PUEBLOS 553SHIFTS IN

ANTHROPOLOGICALDISCOURSE AND PRACTICE . 556

DISCOURSE SHIFTS:LANGUAGES OF POLITICALPRACTICE ANDIMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . 562Indigenous Political Imaginaries . . 562Customary Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563Indigenous Deployment of Culture 563Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564

FUTURE DIRECTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . 565

INTRODUCTION

This review examines a cross-section of theliterature on indigenous movements in LatinAmerica from 1992 through 2004. This tem-poral framing spans important historical mo-ments, from the Columbian quincentenaryand the end of the Cold War through thestepped-up globalization of the present. Weconfine our focus to what we see to be someof the most important aspects of indigenousorganizing, and to several undeservedly ne-glected issues. Enlisting the notion of shiftsin activist and scholarly discourses to struc-ture our argument, we adopt perspectivesfrom three subject positions: states and in-ternational actors, indigenous communities(henceforth “pueblos”1), and scholars (a cate-gory that includes indigenous and nonindige-nous, national and foreign scholars). We then

1This Spanish term means both “town/community” and“people.” Villalon discusses this term in the Venezuelancontext (2002, pp. 18, 32). Indigenous peoples in LatinAmerica have tended to organize politically around the ideaof belonging to pueblos rather than to minority or racialgroups.

look more closely at what we refer to as lan-guages of implementation: altered or entirelynew performative rhetorics and the discursiveterrains on which they are deployed (politicalimaginaries, customary law, culture, and iden-tity). We are particularly concerned to high-light the serious limitations of several analyticpolarities, previously useful but now impedi-ments more than anything else.

In 1995, Van Cott characterized the goalsof Latin American indigenous movements tobe self-determination and autonomy, with anemphasis on cultural distinctiveness; politi-cal reforms that involve a restructuring of thestate; territorial rights and access to natural re-sources, including control over economic de-velopment; and reforms of military and policepowers over indigenous peoples (p. 12). Ourprimary aim has been to highlight what we,a decade later, see to be the most importantchanges.

Owing to page length constraints imposedby the Annual Reviews format, this review isnot a survey of the literature, nor does itaddress the history of indigenous organiz-ing in Latin America. We cannot comprehen-sively discuss many significant epistemolog-ical issues, for example, the implications ofthe shift to more historicized research per-spectives, nor can we construct models or ty-pologies, systematically characterize the na-tional movements in each country, or do morethan mention some of the work on variouscrucial topics. Finally, we deeply regret hav-ing to limit our ability to cite the burgeon-ing Latin American literature, indigenous andnonindigenous, on this topic.

The topics of ethnic identity and ethnicactivism now interest some of the best andbrightest young scholars in anthropology andpolitical science. Latin Americanist scholar-ship on these subjects alone has become a vir-tual industry. Surely one reason for this is theseveral spectacularly successful indigenousmobilizations during the 1990s, such as theindigenous uprisings in Ecuador (Selverston-Scher 2001; Van Cott 2005; Whitten 2004,pp. 62–64) and Bolivia (Van Cott 2000, Calla

550 Jackson ·Warren

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

2000). Other well-known cases are still strug-gling to have a sustained national impact.The Zapatista uprising in Chiapas in 1994to protest the signing of the North Ameri-can Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (Collier1999, Harvey 1998, Rus et al. 2003, Stephen2002) is one example, but it nonetheless man-aged to achieve an important measure of re-gional self-administration and self-definitionin a manner previously unthinkable. Mobi-lizing continues to make headlines; in 2000,indigenous people helped force the Boliviangovernment to cancel plans to allow the Bech-tel Corporation sell the country’s water to itsown citizens (Laurie et al. 2002, pp. 265–69).In several countries, most spectacularly in Bo-livia and Ecuador, the indigenous movementhas worked to create ethno-political partiesthat participate at every electoral level (Albo2002).

DISCOURSE SHIFTS—STATE,NATIONAL, TRANSNATIONAL

Until the 1980s and 1990s, Latin Americanpublic discourse and state policies discouragedpoliticized indigenous identification. The in-digenist policies of the era were directedat assimilation. Gordillo & Hirsch (2003)talk of the “invisibilization” of Indians inArgentina (the same occurred with blacks inColombia; see Wade 2002, p. 9). Sam Colop(1996) speaks of a Guatemalan state “dis-course of concealment.” National policy andclass-based organizing encouraged indige-nous Bolivians and Peruvians to self-identifyas campesinos. State nationalism associatesindigenous communities with the nation’s“glorious indigenous past,” marginalizingthem in the present—except for museums,tourism, and folkloric events (Alonso 1994).Mallon (1992) provides an illuminating com-parison of state projects for a “modern” mes-tizo hegemony in Mexico, Peru, and Bolivia.

The past three decades have seen a re-markable reversal. In Ecuador groups pre-viously seen basically as Quichua-speakingcampesinos have been classified into a set of

NAFTA: NorthAmerican Free TradeAgreement

NGOs:nongovernmentalorganizations

pueblos and assigned territories (Macdonald2003). Other Andean communities thathad traded their indigenous identity for acampesino one underwent processes of reindi-genization (de la Cadena 2000, Plant 2002).Brazil recognized 30 new indigenous com-munities in the northeast, a region previouslyseen to have lost its indigenous population(French 2004, p. 663; see also J. Warren 2001on newly self-identified Brazilian Indians).State ideologies of mestizaje—which empha-size cultural and biological mixing rather thanethno-racial difference, as in Vasconcelos’ “laraza cosmica” (“the cosmic race,” see Alonso2004)—shifted to identities that valorized dif-ference, in particular Indianess. Constitu-tional reforms recognizing multicultural na-tions containing plural citizenries occurredin Guatemala, Nicaragua, Brazil, Colombia,Mexico, Paraguay, Ecuador, Argentina, Peru,and Venezuela.

These changes took place in states that, al-though hardly withering away, were becom-ing “increasingly porous as the boundariesbetween the state and society change [in an]increasingly plural and transnationalised in-ternational context” (Sieder 2002, p. 201).Various transnational social movements (hu-man rights, women’s rights, environmental-ism) have proliferated. In many ways the in-digenous rights movement itself was “borntransnational” (Brysk 1995, Tilley 2002).Transnational organizing and coalition build-ing opened up new opportunities for pueb-los to influence national legislative agendas,and many nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) that specialize in development or hu-man rights came to see indigenous peoples asclients (Brysk 2000). Many Latin Americancountries signed international human rightstreaties and covenants: The leverage providedby the 1989 International Labor Organiza-tion’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Con-vention 169 has been especially far-reaching(Gray 1997, pp. 13–20). With their claimsof collective grievances and rights, indige-nous organizations challenged democraticliberalism’s focus on the individual rights

www.annualreviews.org • Latin American Indigenous Movements 551

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

IMF: InternationalMonetary Fund

Neoliberal reforms:intended to helpresolve the fiscal,legitimacy, andgovernability crisesfaced by LatinAmerican countries

and responsibilities of undifferentiated “cit-izens” (Hodgson 2002, p. 1092; Muehlebach2001; Yashar 2005).

Under pressure from the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bankto resolve fiscal, legitimacy, and governabilitycrises, many Latin American states agreed toadopt neoliberal reforms to promote democ-ratization, economic liberalization, and de-centralization. Neoliberalism argues that pri-vatization and decentralization will result ina less corrupt and less bloated government,one less dependent on clientalist relations toget things done. A concomitant “social adjust-ment” (Alvarez et al. 1998, p. 22) should bemade, with measures taken to foster move-ment toward a more participatory civil soci-ety and to take up the slack resulting from de-creases in social services. Appeals to diversity,to a pluralist state in which everyone partic-ipates, further this “social adjustment” goal,and so it is not surprising that in some casesneoliberal models and policies have favoredpueblos’ agendas. Pressure from internationalNGOs and bodies like the United Nations hasresulted in states recognizing rights to differ-ence, which allows indigenous activists andgroups to make claims that enlist discoursesabout tradition and community that resonatewith neoliberal discourses on community sol-idarity and social capital (Sieder 2002, p. 18).

Abundant evidence exists showing thatsustained struggle and compromise have beennecessary for the passing and implementingof these reforms. Striking changes have in-deed occurred. A general shift from totalitar-ian and authoritarian to democratic govern-ment took place, a Marxist paradigm that saworganizing for cultural and historical recov-ery to be mistaken and regressive declined,older assimilationist indigenism lost ground,and new debates and new legal forms resultedin a greater inclusion of indigenous peoples inthe national political process. Ethnic groupsincreasingly came to be seen as “contempo-rary sociocultural configurations strongly ar-ticulated within national society” able to “be-come a political force without renouncing

their identities or demands” (Dıaz Polanco1997, p. 988). But constitutions and peaceaccords may complicate implementation intheir echoing of the idealized rhetoric of in-ternational norms in a way that is particularlyvague and ambiguous, sometimes deliberatelyso (Assies et al. 2000, p. 297). In addition,many of the older power structures remained.Authors, indigenous and nonindigenousalike, point out the numerous ways that eth-nic and racial discrimination continue to beso deeply embedded that the relationshipbetween citizen and state remains far fromdemocratic (Jelin 1996, pp. 109–10; Schirmer1996). Indigenous organizing and resistancecontinue to exact a high toll, with thousandsof leaders being assassinated. And during thepast three decades, armed conflict, especiallyin Guatemala, Peru, and Colombia, has pro-duced severe political repression, hundredsof thousands of indigenous deaths, and overa million indigenous refugees and internallydisplaced persons.

As Yashar points out (2005), the adoptionof multicultural citizenship reforms by LatinAmerican states did not occur solely becauseof outside pressure, and scholars have hypoth-esized about possible contributing domesticreasons. Some scholars believe multiculturalcitizenship reforms appealed to ruling elitesas a way for the state to signal its citizens thatit was attending to their interests, despite adecreasing ability to meet material demands(Van Cott 2000; D.L. Van Cott, forthcom-ing2). Authors such as Hale (2002) argue thatstates provide favorable terms to certain in-digenous groups to reject the more radical de-mands of others. Other scholars argue that thenegative impact of fiscal austerity measures onpueblos’ local autonomy and livelihoods pro-vided the impetus for increased ethnic mobi-lization, some of it successful enough to forcestates to negotiate (Brysk 2000, Yashar 1999).

2Van Cott DL. Forthcoming. Multiculturalism against ne-oliberalism in Latin America. In Does Multiculturalism Erodethe Welfare State? ed. K Banting, W Kymlicka. New York:Oxford Univ. Press.


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

Yashar (1996) argues that those left at themargins of this new wave of democratizationsoon discovered that ethnicity was a power-ful language for social mobilizing and politicaldemands.

A substantial number of authors discuss in-stances in which indigenousness and multi-culturalism have bolstered neo-liberal ideol-ogy by reinforcing decentralized governanceand market policies (Giordani 2002, p. 86).Plant (2002) provides a valuable country-by-country comparison of the relationship be-tween cultural identity maintenance, legis-lation around land titling, and the effectsof neoliberal policies aimed at dismantlingcorporate agrarian structures.

The impact of neoliberal reforms on in-digenous mobilizing is hotly debated. Clearlythe reforms, in their efforts to strengthencivil society through policies of decentral-ization, have provided both new constraintsand opportunities for pueblos seeking recog-nition and expanded power (Hodgson 2002,p. 1092). Some authors see neo-liberalism’smove to a strategy of what Mexican Presi-dent Vicente Fox terms “government of busi-ness, by business, for business” (Speed 2002,p. 223) to be an unmitigated disaster. Cer-tainly the negative effects of structural adjust-ment, privatization, and rollbacks of state ser-vices on national economies and local-levelemployment result in adverse consequencesfor pueblos. Sturm (SAR 2004, p. 16) ar-gues that neoliberalism offers a thinly veiledracism of a new variety. Neoliberal ideol-ogy’s emphasis on culture, class individualism,and choice, she argues, denies the persistenceof economic marginalization and structuralracism, as well as the meaningfulness of raceat all. Neoliberalism’s professed multiculturalneutrality allows unique historical and polit-ical forms of oppression to be glossed over.An illusion of a level playing field is created,and issues of race, power, and privilege areobscured.

Overall, neoliberal reforms have beendeeply contradictory for Latin America’s in-digenous people. They have opened political

space and encouraged so-called local controland decision making over the developmentprocess, while generating tensions in ruralcommunities over issues such as unfundedmandates, local taxes, and land alienations thatdiminish the resources on which their liveli-hoods depend (Benson 2004; Hodgson 2002,p. 1092). The struggles of Colombia’s U’wa toresist Occidental Petroleum’s plans for seis-mic testing and well digging illustrate thatcollective title to land may not suffice whengovernments retain subsoil rights ( Jackson2002b, pp. 96–98). Critics argue that scruti-nizing the politics of development will revealthat state and industry support follows a logicof development that rests on a confidence thatmost often the communities “will be forcedby circumstances to put these resources atthe disposal of industry” (Dombrowski 2002,p. 1068).

DISCOURSE SHIFTS—PUEBLOS

The politics being pursued by pueblos—demanding and attaining national and inter-national recognition of their identity and thelegitimacy of their claims—has shown thatadopting an overall strategy of cultural andhistorical recovery and revival is often the bestroute for achieving a degree of autonomy andself-determination, as well as convincing fun-ders and legislators of the reasonableness ofother kinds of claims, such as titling a tradi-tional collective land tenure system. Securingcollective land rights has proved more likelywhen pueblos successfully convince govern-ment bureaucrats and the courts of the va-lidity of indigenous understandings of nativeidentity and practices. These campaigns havepushed for a much more comprehensive no-tion of territory. Rather than simply the landitself, territory is seen to be a crucial foun-dation for self-determination, a “fundamen-tal and multidimensional space for the cre-ation and recreation of the social, economic,and cultural values and practices of the com-munities” (Alvarez et al. 1998, p. 20). Mini-mally, pueblo autonomy should include land,


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

resources, and normative and administrativespace [Cojtı Cuxil 1994; Sieder 2002, p. 7; seeKearney & Varese (1995, p. 228) on the linkbetween territory and ethnic groups as juridi-cal subjects].

This kind of “politics of recognition”(Taylor 1994) takes place in complex fields ofpower and has required that indigenous iden-tity itself be turned into a strategy, a politicalopportunity structure—which does not meanthat, by so doing, it somehow loses culturaland historical content. Even goals more ex-plicitly development oriented, such as obtain-ing access to training and resources to mod-ify traditional subsistence modes or raise thequality of education and health status, are ar-ticulated in terms that insist on these goalsbeing accomplished in culturally appropriateways.

The cultural and historical recovery strat-egy recognizes that if pueblos are to succeedwith their political agendas they need to per-form their indigenous difference to gain theauthority to speak and be listened to. Laurieet al. (2002) argue that the political culturewithin which indigenous struggles occur reliesmostly upon such representations of indige-neousness “rather than on established criteria,self-determination and/or self-identification(in spite of what the legislation might sug-gest)” (p. 270; also see Briones 2003). Garfield(2001) describes the process by which theBrazilian Xavante realized that emphasizingpositive stereotypes of Indians as ecologistsand as the first Brazilian nationalists wouldoptimally help them with their land claims(see also Graham 2002). Not all mobiliz-ing that employed such argumentation suc-ceeded. Ticona (2000) analyzes the failure ofan urban-based Aymara movement, notwith-standing its politically self-conscious indige-nous majority base (cited in Van Cott 2003,p. 227).

Pueblo performances are intended for a va-riety of audiences: other indigenous groupsas well as national and international actors(Conklin 1997, Graham 2002, Turner 2002).Especially when polemical, these perfor-

mances can be tactically misconstrued bycritics of indigenous empowerment. Oppo-nents who take the position that any po-litical assertiveness threatens race war, andthat any demand for self-determination istantamount to a desire for secession, seemto assume that, unlike politicians in general,indigenous polemic must be taken literally(Falk 2001). Criticism that conjures up im-ages of “balkanization” (Giordani 2002, p. 81),that sees indigenous leaders as dupes of“agitators” from other countries, or thatasserts that ethnic revitalization projectsimpede the country’s journey toward moder-nity make for good copy in the morningnewspaper and good strategies for mobiliz-ing nonindigenous voters. In fact, indige-nous claims to self-determination and auton-omy do not include secessionist projects, eventhough some indigenous intellectuals will ar-gue that that right must never be ceded (CojtıCuxil 1997). For the most part indigenousactivist rhetoric and practices have empha-sized other goals and demands such as ed-ucation, judicial restructuring, and land re-forms. Indigenous complaints tend to decrya rejecting, exclusionary state, a state run byelites interested in maintaining power abovethe needs of the poor. “Nunca mas un Mexicosin nosotros!” (“never again a Mexico with-out us!”) expresses the aims of the vast ma-jority of indigenous organizations (Rus et al.2003). Harvey (1998) argues that the Zapatistarebellion represents a new form of ruralprotest because it sparked broader efforts bothto change the way pueblos throughout Mex-ico were represented in state discourse andto bring about democratic elections. Ecua-dorian indigenous activism prioritizes inclu-sion and participation: The Pachacutik partyand the indigenous movement in generalpresent themselves “not simply as a new andlegitimate political party but also as a van-guard for advancing broad popular participa-tion and democratization” (Macdonald 2003,p. 10). Zamosc (2003) points out that Ecuado-rian natives who protest integration are re-jecting the agenda of cultural homogenization


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

embedded in it, not integration per se (p. 55).CONAIE (Confederation of Indigenous Na-tionalities of Ecuador) also followed a col-laboration politics, seeking to include othersectors of civil society in the dialogues. Dela Cadena (2001) analyzes Peruvian indige-nous politicians’ demands for political spaceto participate as literate indigenous activists,an oxymoronic status prior to this struggle (p.257). Warren (1998) points out that Mayaswho challenged the Guatemalan model of“national culture” (p. 195) did not necessar-ily reject the notion of a unified Guatemala.

An especially telling reply to accusa-tions of indigenous “threats to the state” isfound in indigenous leaders’ rhetoric in themany mass demonstrations protesting gov-ernments’ invitations to multinational cap-ital to conduct what are perceived as landor subsoil resource grabs. Their protestsexpress a form of nationalism and patrio-tism (Stephen 1997) that is opposed to acorrupt, incompetent, sell-out government.Some of the most effective speeches and po-sition papers coming out of the movementmake inclusive, populist arguments in fa-vor of putting the nation (one that is mul-ticultural, multilingual, and pluri-ethnic, ofcourse) first and foremost. Such rhetoric sim-ply did not appear during the 1980s and early1990s. The impressive levantamientos (upris-ings) in Ecuador and Bolivia (Brysk 2004,pp. 28–31; Macdonald 2002) were the op-posite of secessionist strategies; their plat-forms critiqued governmental willingness tosell a country’s patrimony to foreign inter-ests and protested governmental indifferenceto the consequences of structural adjustmentsqueezes on those sectors of impoverishedcitizens who could least withstand it. Herewe see indigenous organizing that representsthe concerns of a wider constituency facing acommon enemy.

Scholars will need to continue their analy-ses of the tensions activists encounter betweenemphasis on organizing at the national ver-sus the pueblo level. We see such tensionsmost particularly in Guatemala (Montejo

CONAIE:Confederation ofIndigenousNationalities ofEcuador

COCEI: Coalitionof Workers,Peasants, andStudents of theIsthmus

2005, Velazques Nimatuj 2005). They are alsoapparent in Bolivia, where espousal of Aymarasuperiority cost activists like Felipe Quispesupport from lowland pueblos (Langer &Munoz 2003, p. 205). Ecuadorian activistNina Pacari urges Shuar to identify as Shuar,not simply as indigenous citizens (Langer &Munoz 2003, p. 204).

Researchers who become deeply involvedwith indigenous organizations are able tosee factionalism developing and analyze itscauses—a substantial contribution. For ex-ample, Bastos & Camus analyze the com-plex relation of culturalists and grassrootsleftists, among them popular Mayas inGuatemala’s Pan-Mayanism (1995, 1996).Campbell (1996) notes that as the Mexicangovernment granted greater legitimacy toCOCEI (Coalition of Workers, Peasants, andStudents of the Isthmus) internal tensionsseemed to be on the rise, which suggests thatwithout the threat of repression and sense ofurgency, ethnic and class solidarity may notbe enough to thwart internal factionalism.

Ethnographic research is also needed intothe various ways a pueblo’s (or indigenousorganization’s) agendas are vulnerable to in-ternational NGO pressure to comply withtheir political and economic agendas (Tilley2002). Clearly, a pueblo’s ability to critiqueNGOs and dependence on donor funds willaffect its self-representation, both to the out-side and to themselves [Ramos 1994, Raxche’1995; see Varese (1996) on the indigenous ac-tivist/conservationist alliance, and see Chapin(2004) on neoliberalism’s impact on it].

The terms with which many pueblos rep-resent themselves are fluid and temporary, anybinaries quickly dissolving. Castaneda (2004)describes the term Maya as “an embattledzone of contestation of belonging, identity,and differentiation” (p. 41). Schwittay (2003)describes Kollas as articulating the languageof national citizenship and the language of in-digeneity (p. 146). Pueblo discourse about in-digenous identity is especially fluid and mul-tiple in land claims. Ramırez (2002) describesthe emergence of a new indigenous group in


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

Colombia’s Putumayo who, realizing that “In-dians exist by virtue of the state’s legal system,”acquired legal ethnic group status, despitepueblos in the region arguing that the claimwas “imaginary” (pp. 142–47). Chaves (2001)describes a tug-of-war between Putumayocolonos (settlers) claiming to be indigenous andthe director of the National Office of IndianAffairs. Colombia’s Choco province offers anexample of “white” and “Indian” families be-ing included in the definition of a “black com-munity” that is seeking land title. The right to“be black” for the purposes of the land claimderives from black-indigenous intermarriageor from histories of cooperation, exchange,and sharing (Wade 2002, p. 19). Wade de-scribes how the Colombian state “indianizes”these communities.

SHIFTS IN ANTHROPOLOGICALDISCOURSE AND PRACTICE

Anthropologists have led the drive to embracemore culturalist approaches, paying attentionto the fluidity of ethno-racial meanings andhow they are constructed, negotiated, and re-constructed. Simply put, the cultural is polit-ical and the political is cultural (Alvarez et al.1998). K.B. Warren (2001) characterizes re-cent scholarship as turning “away from ‘cul-ture’ as uniformity to the study of social andcultural heterogeneity, the ethnographic con-cern with multiple identities and their lines ofinteraction rather than the privileging of eth-nicity as more foundational than other identi-fications, and the engagement with competingdiscourses of identity rather than essentializedrenderings of authenticity” (p. 94). The mostinteresting recent work employs methodolo-gies that continue the anthropological tradi-tion of long-term, intense, face-to-face re-search; however, it takes place at multiplesites. Investigators examine a variety of inter-subjectivities involving, for example, indige-nous activists; translocal, nonindigenous ac-tivist “collaborators”; and practitioners fromregional, national, and international institu-tions. Marcus sees such “mobile ethnography”

as an attempt to “examine the circulation ofcultural meanings, objects, and identities indiffuse time-space” (1998, p. 79). The chal-lenges are considerable, given the discipline’semphasis on achieving a deep understandingof small-scale communities, including localsystems of knowledge.

Although Latin American anthropologyalways assumed that activism and schol-arship go together—scholars like RodolfoStavenhagen, Alcida Ramos, Myriam Jimeno,Stefano Varese, Nellie Arvelo-Jimenez, andManuela Carneiro da Cunha come to mind—only recently have North American and Eu-ropean scholars problematized and blurredthe distinction in their actual fieldwork, re-jecting earlier orthodoxies that stressed theneed for activist scholars to keep their parti-san activities separate from their “scientific”work. (Of course, anthropologists through-out the hemisphere have been writing abouttheir activist concerns for decades.) Innova-tive research designs assign to the anthro-pologist roles such as secretary or transla-tor during meetings; participant in marches,demonstrations, and blockades; and workshopleader. Sawyer (2004) assumed a strong ad-vocacy position from the very beginning ofher fieldwork on Ecuadorian indigenous mo-bilizations that were protesting multinationaloil extraction in the Oriente section of thecountry. Other examples are England’s (see2003) involvement in the Maya language re-vival movement for some 30 years, and Speed’sparticipation as an observer in a Civilian PeaceCamp in Chiapas in May 1995 (2002). Ar-ticles and ethnographies emerging from thissort of research are packed with the kind ofinformation so often absent in political sci-ence analyses of these very processes. Therewould have been no way to observe 99% ofwhat Sawyer reports had she not signed onas a supporter. It is difficult to imagine how aresearcher could avoid taking a stand on suchimportant issues (Starn 1991). Ethnographicpractice that bridges inquiry, activism, andparticipatory approaches to the production ofcultural knowledge raises complex questions,


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

epistemological and ethical, answers to whichare not exactly around the corner (see Field1998; Hale 2004; Jackson 1999; Warren &Jackson 2002b, pp. 8–11). But at least theissues are being productively reframed. Ac-tivist researchers do try to be as objective aspossible, producing comprehensive, system-atic, theoretically engaged work that reflex-ively speaks to some of the dilemmas withwhich they wrestle.

Recent scholarship illustrates why certaindichotomies and concepts, usefully employedin earlier analyses, now hinder more thanhelp. One overly simple dichotomy constructsdifference uniquely in terms of an “indige-nous/nonindigenous” or “same/other” divi-sion. All the ways in which pueblos are resigni-fying indigenousness unfailingly demonstratethat underneath such binaries are complex,nuanced, and, above all, dynamic meaningstructures. The dichotomy between indige-nous and nonindigenous is never unprob-lematic, but this fact does not deny thatsuch a binary exists. It does mean that wemust constantly resist seeing it as a natu-ral, straightforward, uncomplicated division.The literature provides many fascinating ex-amples of “indigenousness” being resignifiedin novel ways. For example, to what de-gree does being able to speak to power (i.e.,be fluent in a colonizer language) disqualifythe speaker? Such fluency may mean that aspeaker has permanently traversed a culturaland ideological boundary and hence can nolonger be bilingual and bicultural (Rappaport2005). This fraught aspect of the politics-of-culture issue puts a new spin on the “Can thesubaltern speak?” question. Rappaport illus-trates the meagerness of the “same/other” di-chotomy with a description of complex grada-tions of Otherness in her work with a varietyof indigenous intellectuals in Cauca, Colom-bia. Field provides an example from westernNicaragua, which, like Northeastern Braziland El Salvador (Tilley 2002), was officiallyseen to have lost its indigenous populations.One community Field studied (1998) didnot become involved with the indigenous

movement, even though they saw themselvesas indigenous, whereas another communityaligned its families with the regional indige-nous movement, even though craftswomenhad earlier “proudly maintained” the mestizaorigin of their ceramic production (p. 432).

The contrasts between community-basedversus individual-based indigenous identityalso point out subtle gradations between“same” and “other.” Occhipinti (2003) de-scribes how members of a community saw itbecoming Kolla when its claim to that iden-tity succeeded, regardless of whether they felta strong sense of Kolla identity (p. 160). Sim-ilarly, Speed (2002) saw processes she charac-terizes as “being and becoming indigenous”in Chiapas to occur at the community level,during discussions concerned with “declaringourselves a ‘pueblo indıgena’” (p. 212).

As with territory, ways in which languageis seen to signal, confer, and validate indige-nousness continue to require examination.Many authors write on the problematic equa-tion of language = ethnic identity. Brown(1996) describes language “as both the exter-nal and internal symbol of a people [and as]a crucial element in emerging ethnic presen-tation” (p. 206). It is obvious that languageoften represents a people in all kinds of ways,its loss seen as a tragedy, but this is not thewhole story. Garzon et al. (1998) describea switch generation of indigenous Spanishspeakers in Guatemala that reflected a newdomestic family economic strategy. Early cul-turalist activists often came from such familiesand, as a result, had to relearn their commu-nity’s indigenous languages as they advocatedfor official language recognition. Yet speakingGuaranı in Paraguay or Mexicano (Nahuatl)in Mexico does not mark indigeneity, anddominant societal appropriations of indige-nous lexicon to stigmatize indigeneity also oc-cur: Whitten’s (2003) examples of Quichuaused by elite Ecuadoreans (p. 69) resemblethe “mock Spanish” described by Hill (1999).Various institutional authorities try to requiresome form of link between cultural mark-ers, such as language, and cultural identities.


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

In the past, some states required a person whohad moved out of a community to speak itslanguage still or be classified as “used to be in-digenous.” Today, however, such policies maybe overruled, so dynamic are these politics,local and national. In sum, cases exist wherepueblos do not speak their traditional lan-guage, other cases where nonindigenous pop-ulations do speak a traditional language, andstill other cases where people speaking a lan-guage feign total ignorance of it (Castaneda2004, p. 41).

The processes by which collective histori-cal struggle, a common ancestry of suffering,confers indigenousness are examined by sev-eral authors. Sam Colop (1996) and Montejo& Akab’ (1992, Montejo 1999) speak of a viewof indigenous identity as shaped by a historyof resistance to nation-states. Field (1998)notes that this requires the anthropologist “touncover and describe the specific historicalconditions producing elements of identity,attending to their dynamically continuoustransformations” (p. 432). Rappaport &Dover (1996) speak of the “romance of resis-tance” enhancing a multi-pueblo Colombianindigenous organization’s sense of beingunited through a history of struggle. Gray(1997) sees consciousness of indigenousnessto emerge “when a people senses the injus-tices of colonization” (p. 23; see also Pallares2004). Speed (2002) describes the inhabitantsof the town of Nicolas Ruız saying thatthey are recovering their lost Tzeltal culturebecause “[t]he truth is, we are Tzeltales. . .inthe struggle with indigenous people”(p. 217).

The overly simple dichotomy of “tradi-tional” and “modern” does not satisfacto-rily characterize the complex divisions de-scribed in most recent publications. Kearney(1996) and Warren & Jackson (2002b) ar-gue that Latin America’s native peoples areincreasingly to be seen as transnationalized,urban, proletarian, border-crossing, bilingualand trilingual, and professional. Kearney &Varese (1995, pp. 215–21) describe the present“postdevelopment era” as characterized by

neither wholly modern nor traditional indige-nous identities (also see Martınez 2004). Starn(2003; see also 1999), writing about Peru’srondas (self-defense organizations that aroseduring the period of extreme violence involv-ing “Shining Path” guerrillas and the state’scounter-insurgency forces), judiciously cri-tiques Garcıa Canclini’s (1995) analytic modelbased on this opposition. Laurie et al. (2002)argue that indigenous identities in Boliviaare being reconstituted in nondichotomousterms, neither wholly modern nor traditional(p. 253); the same is true for many Colombianpueblos (Gow & Rappaport 2002). Cojtı Cuxil(2002) and Warren (1998) also provide ex-amples of an emerging urban, cosmopolitan,and professional class of Mayas, as do authorsin Fischer & Brown (1996) and Watanabe& Fischer (2004). Plant’s (2002) concise dis-cussion of the debate over whether indige-nous identity should be seen as based in a par-ticular economic system, or in a relationshipwith the land and environment, also pointsout the problems with standards based on“traditional” behavior (pp. 212–14).

Authors also attend to official construc-tions of the “traditional.” Briggs notes thatthe opposition between “traditional subjects,”who are inexorably embedded in local envi-ronments, and “cosmopolitan subjects” hasbeen a central epistemological and politi-cal component of modern discourses sincethe seventeenth century (Bauman & Briggs2003, p. 133, as cited in Briggs 2004, p. 176).Would-be demonstrators, en route to protestVenezuela’s handling of a cholera epidemic,were targeted at military checkpoints set upto block “any body that looked indigena” fromleaving. Although these activists knew theywere participating in a transnational indige-nous movement, the government had otherplans: to fix them in “traditional” and “local”identity spaces.

Another overly simple conventional po-larity is that between “authentic” (a thor-oughly Western concept) and its opposite—inauthentic, fake, invented, new, modern,Western, etc. When culture becomes a form


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

of empowerment, mobilizing around thatempowerment may seem fraudulent preciselybecause it is politicized. State challenges madeto indigenous individuals and communitiesmay take the form of claims that they are“no longer indigenous” because of their “un-traditional” behavior. More specific politicalchallenges to urban-based activism have beenused by their opponents in attempts to dele-gitimize leaders. The argument that individ-uals do (or do not) represent their indigenouspeople begs the processual question of whorepresents whom in all facets of political life.A revealing variant on the theme of a state’schallenges to a group’s authenticity (and hencelegitimacy) is the Argentine government’schallenges to sectors of its Guaranı citizens.Although their indigeneity is unproblematic,they are accused of being so influenced byBolivian Guaranı that their status as Argen-tineans has been compromised (Hirsch 2003,Schwittay 2003). Note that indigenous groupsas well as critics of the movement actively em-ploy the “authenticity” card in their internaland external politics (Turner 2002, Ramırez2002).

Anthropology, with its current more dy-namic notion of culture, sees no absolute stan-dard of authenticity. Rather, our focus is onthe authenticators—on the authorities in in-digenous communities and the experts beyondwho determine what is deemed authentic atany one time. Critics with their narrow modelof indigenous leadership have not acceptedthat, in fact, indigenous leaders will rangefrom tribal headmen and ritual elders to urbanuniversity-trained leaders. Several authors in-terpret examples of indigenous movements’appropriation of occidental notions of authen-tic tradition to be moves toward safeguardingtradition and resisting hegemony and not ex-amples of co-optation and consequent “inau-thenticity.” Assies (2000) describes indigenouswomen in Chiapas contesting a tradition thatexcludes them from participation in politicaldecision-making and in so doing vindicatingtheir role in processes of ethnic reorganiza-tion (p. 18). Garfield (2001) saw the Xavante

Essentialism:characterizingrepresentations thatfreeze and reify anidentity in a way thathides the historicalprocesses andpolitics within whichit develops

employing the legal and political tools of theiroppressors in their land claim struggles. Mayaleaders work to appropriate elements of West-ern culture and reappropriate elements oftheir own history to create a cultural identitythat is viable in the global political economy,and marked as uniquely theirs (Fischer 1996).In sum, cultural continuity can appear asthe mode of cultural change (Wade 1997).Ethnogenesis (Mallon 1996, Smith 1990, Hill1997) is always an already-ongoing process; itmerely speeds up during times of ruptures,disjunctures, and transitions.

Researchers’ write-ups of their work withindigenous intellectuals illustrate the com-plex imaginings and reimaginings of whatis involved in being “modern,” especiallywhen some people, indigenous and not, seemodernity to be opposed to the “authenti-cally” indigenous leader (Rappaport 2005).Some indigenous intellectuals who work incommunity development projects develop at-titudes and perspectives that allow them toidentify both as indigenous and as membersof mainstream society. Indigenous communi-ties can and do question the appropriatenessof some leaders’ choices, seeing them as “diri-gentes de maletın y corbata” (briefcase and tieleaders) (Giordani 2002, p. 80), but in generaltheir indigenousness will not be automaticallyrejected.

By “essentialism,” anthropologists meanthe process of freezing and reifying an identityin a way that hides the historical processes andpolitics within which it develops. Of courseone has to study whose interests are served inthis process. Racist forms of economic pro-duction and state authority use essentializingstrategies in public policy and clandestine op-erations to justify violence, perpetuate hierar-chies of human value and reward, and leaveunquestioned the neglect of certain sectors oftheir populations as something less than hu-man. The focus on the “other” by these au-thorities seeks to obscure that here is a “self”acting in its own interest.

Indigenous “self-essentializing” by con-trast is seen by many anthropologists as a


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

political tactic used by indigenous movementsin Latin America to push for greater au-tonomy and self-government (see Rubin2004, pp. 124–30). Frequently encounteredassumptions that indigenous women mustbe traditional culture place-holders for theirpueblo exemplify an essentialist strategy. De laCadena (2000) describes how highland Peru-vian women are constructed as “more Indian”because they are less likely to speak Spanishor travel to urban centers and more likely towear traditional dress and be assigned dutiesthat are seen as more traditional—all of whichresults in a second-class status of women and“the female” in Andean societies. Nelsonargues that Maya women are expected toplay what she terms the mujer maya’s role,which functions to ground the Maya move-ment “so that urban Maya hackers can soarinto transnational idioms and cyberspace.”Confronting a long tradition of researchthat finds women to be bearers of traditionalculture, conservative, monolingual, rural,and out of place—alien—when they leavetheir homes, Nelson (1999) denaturalizesthese images, analyzing all the ways inwhich they prop up not only the pan-Mayanmovement’s ideology, but Guatemalannational identity as well. Hendrickson(1996) describes how Guatemalan Mayanwomen’s costume—traje—“remains outsidethe broader Maya Movement due to thedifficulties in locating a place for weavingand women in the movement” [p. 163;see also Dean (2003) on lowland Peruand Radcliffe (2000) on the Ecuadoriansituation].

Scholars also describe ways in whichmarginalized sectors, such as women,within indigenous communities in Chiapasare beginning to “refashion and reclaim‘tradition’—here cultural prescriptions in-tended to keep women on the margins ofpolitical process—in order to advance theirown demands for greater participation andindependence” (Sieder 2002, p. 193).Hernandez (1997) describes women fromthe organic producers movement arguing in

favor of indigenous women’s rights duringthe negotiations between the Zapatistas andthe Mexican government. Sieder (2002)comments that finding a balance betweencommunal rights and individual rights con-nected to gender equality, religious freedom,and property rights tends to be particularlycontentious (pp. 11–12). Nash (2001) doc-uments how Mayan women maneuvered toinfluence changes in their favor during thisperiod; she also notes a backlash of genderhostility. She argues that for scholars to renderillegitimate these self-essentializing maneu-vers limits these women’s chances to organizein their own best interests for goals suchas greater accountability of those in power,democratic inclusion, better work conditionsand higher wages, civil and political rights,and cultural autonomy.

Many authors also wrestle with findingeffective ways to describe identity processesthat are flexible and fluid. We have accountsof indianization occurring here and deindi-anization there (e.g., Radcliffe 2000). Whatindigenous identity means, for both scholarand pueblo, can become quite unstable whenall actors are repeatedly modifying their dis-courses in response to the ever-shifting termsof engagement. De la Cadena (2001, p. 255)notes that the idea of difference is complicatedif it is seen to emerge from coparticipation inthe same historical time, a point also made byWilson (1995), who sees it as “an incrediblyslippery notion” (p. 6). Identity is better seenas a paradox rather than a statement, he says,for as soon as such a statement is made, it blursand dissolves.

However, even now some authors still findthemselves having to respond to critics whoinsist, for example, that a certain populationis “really” campesino rather than indigenous.Gordillo & Hirsch (2003) argue that allsuch labels represent a group’s particularpositioning, which is derived from thesocial relations from which their meaningas historical subjects emerges. A positioningof campesino, then, is no more “valid”than a positioning as a member of a “pueblo


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

originario” (p. 180). A number of essays citeLi (2000, p. 151) on this issue: “[A] group’sself-identification as tribal or indigenous isnot natural or inevitable, but neither is itsimply invented, adopted, or imposed. It is,rather, a positioning that draws upon histor-ically sedimented practices, landscapes, andrepertoires of meaning, and emerges throughparticular patterns of engagement andstruggle.”

Clearly, identities are not just fluid, norjust multiple, they are fluidly multiple and al-ways relational, which presents an analyticaland conceptual challenge to anthropologists.Speed (2002) notes that “states, indigenousgroups, and even social scientists, often findsuch fluidity contrary to their different un-derstandings and goals” (p. 222). Part of theproblem lies with the analytic tasks at hand—applying a language that specifies, defines, andpinpoints to very dynamic situations. Differ-ent actors define and try to impose particu-lar, often competing, meanings. Some Peru-vian groups self-identify as mestizos but stillsee themselves as indigenous (de la Cadena2001, p. 263). Although the Guatemalan stateand wider publics find the “Indian-Ladino”distinction useful for its homogenizing func-tion, Little-Siebold (2001) finds fluid andbidirectional uses of identity labels (p. 193;see also Smith 1990). These usages alter thepaired terms’ dominant meaning, althoughthe dichotomy does not disappear entirely.Castaneda (2004) provocatively asks, “[A]reall Maya Maya?” (p. 38), and describes afriend who, although self-identifying as Maya,adamantly maintained that “we are not indige-nous!” (p. 38). Castaneda sees this position tobe a refusal “to be slotted into the ‘savage-slot’ of the rebellious Indio” (p. 38). He arguesthat Yucatec Maya have not only another pol-itics but another modality of identity. Warren(1998) argues that identities and identity pol-itics are shaped by the tensions between dif-ferent historical generations of activists andtheir critics—indigenous and nonindigenousalike—in communities and on the nationalscene. A collection of essays in the Journal

of Latin American Anthropology (2001) on theGuatemalan indigenous-ladino dichotomyshows why words like “contradiction” and“paradox” so often appear in literatureon such identity labels.

The reality of a multiplicity of identitiesdisallows any analytic framework that pro-poses any single identity, albeit a compositeone, because the notion of “multiple iden-tities” still implies separate, distinct identi-ties. Anthropology deserves credit for advanc-ing beyond thinking in terms of ethnicityand race as the foundational dimensionsfor study, but the race/ethnicity/class/genderparadigm raises its own set of problems be-cause it continues to see a unit—individualor community—as possessing an identity. Re-cent field research demonstrates the need tochallenge this mode of conceptualization, al-though not so far as to claim that “iden-tity” does not exist. Rather, again, identity isto be seen as a fluid, dynamic process. Theidea of there being multiple ways of beingindigenous is the optimal way to look at in-dividuals, pueblos, and organizations. Thisperspective allows us to acknowledge a pro-cess of self-definition that takes us beyondthe identity being asserted at a particulartime and place to where we can ask, “As-serted by whom?” and “After what kinds ofnegotiations?” Literature that examines in-tersections between indigenous identity andother identity components like religion, race,and gender clearly demonstrates how cru-cial it is always to see identities in the plu-ral, their formation in processual terms, andrather than asking questions like “What char-acterizes X identity?” asking “What are theways of being X at this time and in thisplace?”

Resonating with the need to think of mul-tiple ways of being indigenous is an equiv-alent need to analyze adequately the differ-ent kinds of citizenship emerging in new“civil society” discourses and practices. Wehave seen that multiculturalist distinctions,often inscribed into constitutions, stipulatethat indigenous individuals and collectivities


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

are to participate in the political processas both regular citizens of a country andas special, indigenous citizens. Scholars ar-gue that differential treatment for histori-cally discriminated and marginalized groupsis necessary for them to attain equal citizen-ship. Rhetoric concerned with democracy andcivil society, in fact, reveals complex movesaround the citizenship trope. Scholarship in-creasingly attends to processes that produceand contest differentiated citizenship, eth-nic citizenship, and cultural citizenship. Thisis an interesting play on Ong’s (1999) no-tion of graduated citizenship and illustratesthe need to problematize the notion of civilsociety, which in some contexts has beenoverused or underspecified to the point of be-ing evacuated of meaning (Rajagopal 2003,pp. 258–61).

In sum, the recent literature discusses thesubstantial problems and challenges faced byanyone—scholars, pueblos, the state, inter-national institutions—who attempts to get afix on defining indigenousness. Anthropolo-gists and historians, no less than governmentspursuing racialized nation-building projects,need categories, but the recent literature pro-vides ample evidence that signifiers are notalways accepted by their intended signifieds—the actual populations may have other classi-ficatory agendas. It is very clear that know-ing who is doing the pointing is crucial. Yes,“Indians” were created by European colonial-ism and the New World–born Spanish criolloelites who assumed power following inde-pendence. And certainly the notions of “in-digenous” adopted in the indigenista policiesof many Latin American governments (andmany NGOs) prior to the 1980s no longerwork. But equally obvious is the impossibil-ity of substituting a new definition for highlydialogic identity labels such as these. One les-son of such an attempt is that ethnic labelsare often politicized in ways that make themindexes for ideological alignments and loy-alties that stand outside ethnic identity perse.

DISCOURSE SHIFTS:LANGUAGES OF POLITICALPRACTICE ANDIMPLEMENTATION

Indigenous Political Imaginaries

Several authors address how movements de-velop an imaginary, an attitude, a stance inregard to the dominant society. The stancestaken by a given movement can significantlyinfluence decision making about, for exam-ple, alliance building with nonindigenous sec-tors such as labor unions or environmentalistand human rights groups. The stances alsoinfluence choices about whether to operatewithin, as opposed to totally outside, the sys-tem. Guatemalan Pan-Mayanists have spokenof a utopian goal of a separate Mayan na-tion or a radical federalism, both organizedon the basis of regional Mayan languages,which would give them administrative controlover the western highlands (Cojtı Cuxil 1994).Strategically, however, they focused on creat-ing hundreds of small organizations dedicatedto cultural and language revitalization, found-ing alternative Mayan elementary schools andtraining shamans, professional linguists, pub-lishers, and other activist professionals.

Opposition from the ruling powers notonly will shape a movement’s self-image andforms of resistance, but also at times willparadoxically ensure that a national indige-nous consciousness will develop. Both Reed(2002) and Horst (2003, p. 127) show howthe extremely difficult struggle during theStroessner regime in Paraguay helped indige-nous activists from disparate pueblos identifythemselves as a concerted lobby bloc opposedto an economic and social agenda that ig-nored their concerns. O’Connor (2003) notesthat although resistance has a long history inEcuador, earlier strategies were primarily re-actionary, lacking long-term, widespread, oralternative solutions to oppression. Here, too,the development of national and even transna-tional strategies resulted in part from frus-tration following unsuccessful local actions.


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

Political mobilizations that were able to unifyhighland and lowland populations in nationalprotests, notably in Bolivia and Ecuador, werestrengthened by the sense that they wereorganizing against a common enemy.

Customary Law

Although indigenous communities have al-ways been granted a degree of autonomyto run their internal affairs, most countriesare fashioning an interface between positivistWestern law and indigenous legal systems thatgive local authorities much more latitude thanbefore, in particular to adjudicate criminalcases. Certain fundamental rights, however,must be observed: no executions, torture, orbanishment. Authors addressing these issuesfind contradictions in both the legislation andits enforcement with respect to indigenousauthorities’ right to judge, detain, establishsanctions, and punish. Stavenhagen (2002,p. 33) discusses how Colombia’s Constitu-tional Court decisions resulted in indigenousjuridical autonomy prevailing to the greatestextent in Latin America. Specific rulings bythe Court show an official apparatus that isseriously attempting to instantiate the coun-try’s status as a multicultural and pluri-ethnicnation. Its encounters with customary law, de-rived from world views and cultural practicesthat are at times simply incommensurate withWestern culture, make for fascinating read-ing (see Sanchez 2000). Local juridical sys-tems rely on methodologies legitimated bycosmological forces and sometimes requireshamanic consultations, assumptions and au-thorizations that differ fundamentally fromWestern notions of justice, due process, andconflict resolution (see Gray 1997; Jackson2002a, p. 119).

Although positivist and customary law arealways opposed in the literature, after a com-prehensive examination of institutionalizedplural jurisprudence being implemented in anactual local setting, Sierra (1995) concludedthat the dichotomy between law and customdissolves in actual situations: Given that in-

teraction between the official juridical bodiesand pueblos produces transformation in both,a more complex model of dispute resolutionis needed.

Specific rulings employing customary laware sometimes disputed within indigenouscommunities themselves, resulting in indi-viduals appealing their sentence by turningto Western courts. Local decisions may bechallenged as discriminatory, authoritarian,or intrusive into private space. For example,is detaining and forcing someone to work acrime against individual liberty or the legiti-mate act of ronda authorities (Yrigoyen 2002,p. 174)? As Stavenhagen (2002) points out,this kind of serious negotiation and renego-tiation always reflects changing political andeconomic circumstances (p. 39). “[L]egal plu-ralism should be seen as a plurality of contin-ually evolving and interconnected processesenmeshed in wider power relations” (Sieder2002, p. 201). An incompatibility betweenliberal Western concepts of universal humanrights and culture-specific collective rights isoften the nub of the problem. Authors will citeKymlicka’s (1996) argument that as long as anindividual can leave a community, then cer-tain restrictions on individual freedoms withinit are justifiable, for example prohibitions onselling land. The basic argument allows thecurtailment of individual rights when they areperceived to threaten the cultural integrityof the group as a whole. Stavenhagen (2002)goes further, offering the proposition that therecognition of group rights may be seen asa condition for the enjoyment of individualrights, but he concedes that such a novel ideais difficult to integrate into Latin America’s le-gal systems (p. 37). Although collective rightsare of great concern to indigenous commu-nities, they often face uphill battles becauseof liberal and neoliberal insistence on theindividual as the holder of rights.

Indigenous Deployment of Culture

The arrival of multiculturalism played a rolein transforming a stigmatized indigenous


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

identity into one often seen to possess amoral capital sorely lacking in Western soci-ety. Some sectors of society have come to seepueblos as representing legitimacy, democ-racy, and accountability, serving as a moral re-proach to status quo hegemonic institutionssuch as the state and the Church. Authorswrite about how indigenous leaders, noticingthe potential value of the symbolic and po-litical capital attained through the resignifi-cation of “indigenous culture,” increase theirefforts to revive and strengthen their own in-stitutions. Garfield (2001) describes how theXavante revived rituals after finding out thatthe outside world considered them “beautiful”(p. 134).

A newer concept, at times opposed tomulticulturality, circulating widely is “in-terculturality” (Rappaport 2005). Whitten(2004) describes how indigenous organiza-tions in Ecuador oppose it to “an ethos ofhybridity or social or cultural pluralism. . . .Interculturality stresses a movement fromone cultural system to another, with theexplicit purpose of understanding other waysof thought and action” (p. 440). Whereas theideologies of social and cultural pluralism andhybridity “are national, regional and static”,formal consciousness of interculturality “islocal, regional, pluri-national, diasporic,global and dynamic” (p. 440). States haveused this nomenclature in school reformswithout, however, promoting new curricularmaterials for nonindigenous students. Indige-nous critics of intercultural education reformpromulgated by the Bolivian neoliberal statesee interculturality to be “‘neoliberal assim-ilation’ now dressed in native languages”(Gustafson 2002, p. 278; also see Lukyx 2000).

Identity

Intra-pueblo negotiations about who is amember in good standing of a given pueblocan hinge on who decides what consti-tutes an adequate performance of identity.De la Pena’s discussion of conflict betweenHuichol traditionalist elders and Evangel-

ical protestants outlines a process of re-solving whether Evangelicals who refuse toparticipate in certain “traditional” commu-nity activities have to leave. Each side’s no-tion of Huichol “culture”—just what consti-tutes “essential” Huichol identity—revolvesaround what members need to actually doto affirm (and reaffirm) their right to beconsidered Huichol. Religious identity andpractice seem to be particularly contentious,and research is increasing around these is-sues (e.g., Canessa 2000, Cleary & Steigenga2004).

As we have seen above, the relationshipbetween state hegemony and local identityclaims can be complex and dynamic. Manyauthors describe how communities will travela considerable distance down the road toincorporation—albeit as indigenous “others”—into the state apparatus, including the stateplaying the role of ultimate juridical au-thority (Padilla 1996). A community mighthave to obtain personerıa jurıdica, juridicalidentity, before it can undertake any kindof legal action [for Colombian examples,see Gros (2000) and Rappaport (1996)]. Anemerging problem is the tendency on thepart of both pueblos and the state to reifyidentity. Although a pueblo’s claim to self-determination does not in principle requireit to freeze-dry its traditions, this is a com-mon response to criticism that a particular setof behaviors is nontraditional and thereforeinauthentic.

Yet it is undeniable that, for many com-munities, being officially recognized asindigenous affects, sometimes substantially,members’ sense of who they are: “Before, weweren’t registered [with the national bureauof indigenous affairs], we weren’t anything.We are just now starting to be aware ofourselves as an ‘indigenous community’”(Occhipinti 2003, pp. 159–60). Somecommunities prefer pueblo, “people,” to “in-digenous” because “pueblo” signals a politicaldiscourse that configures the movement as acoalition of cultural groups rather than as acategory of oppressed people suffering from


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

discrimination based on their ethnicity orrace.

Negotiations over identity seem to beperennially ambiguous, contingent, and shotthrough with ironies. Wilson (1995) sees iden-tity to be “irresolvable,” possessing an “inher-ently insecure ontology” (p. 5): “The seem-ingly contradictory processes of othering andhybridisation are constitutive of each other,dynamically feeding into one another. Iden-tities become interior to each other and im-plicitly influence the emergence of new iden-tities” (p. 3). One of the several contradictionsof identity, according to Wilson (1995), is“that relationality must be present for iden-tity to exist, but the very basis of meaning indifference leads to the crossing-over of signi-fiers and the undermining of any pretensionsto boundedness” (p. 6; see also Wade 1997,pp. 80–83).

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The past three decades have seen a profoundtransformation in Latin American states’ vi-sions of their indigenous populations. Manyof the most marginalized pueblos gained themost basic right: the “right to have rights”as citizens (Alvarez et al. 1998; Harvey 1998,p. 35). Establishing the right to difference,at both the individual and community level,strengthened demands for autonomy and self-determination because it drove a stake intoprevious modernist corporatist state projects.Indigenous communities no longer made de-mands as minorities but as “people” withinherent rights. “Cultural and historical re-covery” projects and “inherent rights” de-mands have been remarkably successful inmany countries. However, discourses basedon cultural difference do not lead to successeverywhere, and they come at a price. At timesthe emphasis on validation by performing dif-ference has relegated other discourses againstracial discrimination and social and economicexclusion to the back of the bus, resultingin problems for Afro-Latinos and rural andurban indigenous communities who can no

longer perform cultural difference via lan-guage, ritual, or other culture practice (see,e.g., Tilley 2002).

Clearly, much progress has been made inrecognizing the rights of people to retain aculture distinct from that of the dominant so-ciety. Stavenhagen (2002) notes that, althoughwe should celebrate gains, the struggle for in-digenous rights has barely begun, and in thefuture the going will be rough. Indigenousleaders have not been able to agree on short-term and medium objectives. Also, poorlyconsidered actions taken by some leaders havedispleased some potential sympathizers, andall too often truly effective political strategieshave not been developed (p. 34). In addition,opponents continue to organize and mountcounteroffensives. In countries like Paraguay,indigenous people have been labeled as ene-mies of the state, and in Guatemala, indige-nous organizing is still seen by some critics as aproject that promotes racism and class/ethnicconflict (Warren 1998).

Although the amount of territory inalien-ably and collectively owned by pueblos hasincreased in several countries, huge problemsremain. Colombia has ceded vast areas to low-land groups, but in the more productive high-land areas the situation is often dire, and VanCott (2002, p. 52) notes the failure of threesuccessive governments to establish the In-digenous Territorial Entities mandated by theconstitution.

The violent conflicts involving indige-nous communities are a continual worry. Nottoo long ago, armed indigenous insurgentsplayed very visible roles in Peru, Colombia,Guatemala, and Mexico. Indigenous commu-nities can come to be seen as subversives be-cause they are poor, they live in rural areas,and they mount public demonstrations againsta neglectful, exploitative, or terrorist state.Accusations detailing pueblo subversion canserve elites’ self-interest in maintaining “thetraditional source of cheap labor and politi-cal supporters in well-oiled systems of client-patron relationships” (Stavenhagen 2002,p. 37) or can ensure that zero resistance will


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

greet mega-development projects exploitingsubsoil, forest, or hydroelectric resources.

Clearly, the romantic view of pueblos ascohesive and consensus-based collectivitiescan be sustained only from a distance. Anyindigenous community will be riddled withconflicts—some ongoing and others resolvedbut not forgotten—as well as factions, hierar-chies, and decision-making mechanisms thatexclude and marginalize some members. Itwill, in short, display values and actions thatare anything but fair, democratic, or egali-tarian, as defined and valorized in the West.(Western institutions and values are no lessconflict ridden and are certainly more ex-clusionary.) How to represent such conflictswithout giving ammunition to enemies whodo not have a given pueblo’s interest upper-most in mind is often not at all evident to ei-ther the pueblos or their nonindigenous allies.

Other potential threats include a disrup-tive stratification within the movement andwithin the communities themselves. “Rights”granted to pueblos can strengthen the sectorsalready possessing power and weaken the po-sition of subordinates (Stavenhagen 2002).

We close by suggesting especially promis-ing future research directions. The first areaconcerns ways in which Latin American re-search articulates with important interna-tional issues. Indigenous activism has clearlyplayed an active role in shaping communityand multicultural national politics in LatinAmerica. Debates concerning whether theprocesses of modernity and globalization havehomogenized meanings or peoples have pro-duced compelling arguments on both sides.On a global level, debates over whether eth-nic mobilizing has helped or hindered democ-ratization have often emphasized divisive andviolent ethnonationalisms. Indigenous move-ments in Latin America, however, suggestthat ethnic mobilization can foster genuinegrassroots democratization.

Another line of comparative scholarshipchallenges the U.S.-centric perspective ofinternational relations research on LatinAmerica. Comparative research on new so-

cial movements and different regional histo-ries in Latin America provides crucial analysesof the playing out of geopolitical transforma-tions, such as the consequences of the end ofthe Cold War, in specific situations. Researchinto the more recent tensions brought on bywaves of neoliberal political and economicpressures also makes valuable contributions,for example, investigations on the effects ofU.S. policies like the war on drugs and the waron terrorism in Latin America. In Colombia,U.S. military advisers have directed a remil-itarization of state policing in the war ondrugs, and indigenous populations have beencaught in the crossfire of these new configu-rations of violence, produced by armed insur-gents, counterinsurgent forces (military andparamilitary), and narcotraffickers.

Territory—gaining land rights—continuesto be the prime goal of indigenous organiza-tions. Successful campaigns for collective title,most spectacularly the Awas Tingi decision inNicaragua, provide encouragement elsewherein the region. We need to understand theseprocesses, as well as the ways Latin Ameri-can countries link—or fail to link—territorialjurisdiction and pueblos. In Mexico, the re-vised 1994 proposal to establish regional au-tonomy for ethnolinguistic communities doesnot link it to actual territory; only the right ofpueblos to decide their destiny as peoples ismentioned.

Many important opportunities presentthemselves for research on violent conflictsthat involve pueblos. Indigenous people havebecome internal and international refugees,facing life in refugee camps and employmentoutside their countries. Many have main-tained close connections with their homelandsand remitted earnings to their families andcommunity development projects. In these di-asporas, some youths have experienced newformations of violence, like U.S. urban gangs,and have introduced gangs into rural LatinAmerican towns. Given the sustained periodsof state violence and armed conflict in LatinAmerica, researchers are beginning to inves-tigate indigenous experiences of individual


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

and collective healing, the reincorporationof former combatants into their communi-ties, and the impact of internationally bro-kered peace processes and truth commis-sions (or lack of these processes) on postwardevelopment.

Neoliberal economic reforms have beenaccompanied by innovative utilization of pri-vate international companies that have as-sumed important state functions. A similarprocess has involved transnational NGOs insubscribing to a variety of political and re-ligious persuasions. We need to know moreabout the degree of control these organiza-tions exert on community life, regional andnational social movements, and state demo-cratic governance. Serious problems often oc-cur when international NGOs engaged in hu-manitarianism, postwar reconstruction, anddevelopment move on to new crises leavingindigenous organizations bereft of supportthey have come to depend on. For example,when they are compelled to generate theirown operating expenses, indigenous non-profit organizations may be forced to restruc-ture their services to attract new kinds ofcustomers.

Research into the new ways state agenciescompete with each other, at times helping in-

digenous communities resist state programs,is another fruitful direction, as is work on de-mystifying the state as a monolithic entity.Such investigations reveal agencies with a di-versity of tendencies. Also welcome is researchinto situations in which pueblo resistance tostate projects is sponsored by capitalist inter-ests, such as logging projects.

Although we have not discussed race andmestizaje, the current research on this con-stellation of topics is enormously promising,as are approaches that examine the numer-ous ways all identities are gendered and oftensexualized.

A final research frontier is indigenousyouth activism, especially important given thegrowing gaps between rich and poor, andthe growing importance of consumer cul-ture, remittance of funds from diasporic com-munities, and nontraditional forms of workfor NGOs. At issue is whether indigenousyouth will follow existing forms of indige-nous activism, find other movements morecompelling, or distance themselves from ac-tivism altogether. The younger generation isa heterogeneous category, the members ofwhich see opportunities and constraints fromvery different cultural and economic vantagepoints.

LITERATURE CITED

Albo X. 2002. Bolivia: from Indian and campesino leaders to councillors and parliamentarydeputies. See Sieder 2002, pp. 74–102

Alonso AM. 1994. The politics of space, time and substance: state formation, nationalism, andethnicity. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:379–405

Alonso AM. 2004. Conforming disconformity: “mestizaje,” hybridity, and the aesthetics ofMexican nationalism. Cult. Anthropol. 19(4):459–90

Alvarez SE, Dagnino E, Escobar A, ed. 1998. Cultures of Politics/Politics of Cultures: Re-VisioningLatin American Social Movements. Boulder, CO: Westview. 459 pp.

Assies W. 2000. Indigenous peoples and reform of the state in Latin America. See Assies et al.2000, pp. 3–22

Assies W, van der Haar G, Hoekema A, ed. 2000. The Challenge of Diversity: Indigenous Peoplesand Reform of the State in Latin America. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis. 315 pp.

Bastos S, Camus M. 1995. Abriendo Caminos: Las Organizaciones del Pueblo Maya y sus Demandas.Guatemala City: FLASCO


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

Bastos S, Camus M. 1996. Quebrando el Silencio: Organizaciones Mayas y sus Demandas, 1986–1992. Guatemala City: FLACSO

Bauman R, Briggs CL. 2003. Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Benson P. 2004. Nothing to see hear. Anthropol. Q. 77(3):436–67Briggs C. 2004. Theorizing modernity conspiratorially: science, scale, and the political econ-

omy of public discourse in explanations of a cholera epidemic. Am. Ethnol. 31(2):164–204Briones C. 2003. Re-membering the dis-membered: a drama about Mapuche and anthropo-

logical cultural production in three scenes (4th edition). J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 8(3):31–58Brown RM. 1996. The Mayan language loyalty movement in Guatemala. See Fischer & Brown

1996, pp. 165–77Brysk A. 1995. Acting globally: Indian rights and international politics in Latin America. See

Van Cott 1995, pp. 29–51Brysk A. 2000. From Tribal Village to Global Village: Indian Rights and International Relations in

Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. 370 pp.Brysk A. 2004. From civil society to collective action: the politics of religion in Ecuador. See

Cleary & Steigenga 2004, pp. 25–42Calla R. 2000. Indigenous peoples, the law of popular participation and changes in government:

Bolivia, 1994–1998. See Assies et al. 2000, pp. 77–96Campbell H. 1996. Isthmus Zapotec intellectuals: cultural production and politics in Juchitan,

Oaxaca. In The Politics of Ethnicity in Southern Mexico, ed. H Campbell, pp. 77–98. Nashville:Vanderbilt Univ. Publ. Anthropol. 50

Canessa A. 2000. Contesting hybridity: Evangelistas and Kataristas in Highland Bolivia. J. Lat.Am. Stud. 32(1):115–44

Castaneda QE. 2004. “We are not indigenous!” the Maya identity of Yucatan, an introduction.J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 9(1):36–63

Chapin M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World-Watch Nov./Dec.:17–31Chaves M. 2001. Discursos subalternos de identidad y movimiento indıgena en el Putumayo. In

Movimientos Sociales, Estado y Democracia en Colombia, ed. M Archila, M Pardo, pp. 234–59.Bogota: CES Universidad Nacional, Instituto Colombiano de Antropologıa e Historia

Cleary EL, Steigenga TJ, ed. 2004. Resurgent Voices in Latin America: Indigenous Peoples, PoliticalMobilization, and Religious Change. New Brunswick: Rutgers. 268 pp.

Cojtı Cuxil D. 1994. Polıticas para la Reivindicacion de los Mayas de Hoy: Fundamento de los DerechosEspecıficos del Pueblo Maya. Guatemala City: Editorial Cholsamaj and Seminario Perma-nente de Estudios Mayas

Cojtı Cuxil D. 1997. Unidad del estado mestizo y regiones autonomas mayas. In Guatemala: ¿Oprimida, Pobre o Princesa Embrujada? ed. F Birk, pp. 175–89. Guatemala City: FundacionFriedrich Ebert

Cojtı Cuxil D. 2002. Educational reform in Guatemala: lessons from negotiations betweenindigenous civil society and the state. See Sieder 2002, pp. 103–28

Collier GA, E Lowery Quaratiello. 1999. Basta! Land and the Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas.Berkeley: Inst. Food Dev. Pol. 179 pp.

Conklin B. 1997. Body paint, feathers, and VCRs: aesthetics and authenticity in Amazonianactivism. Am. Ethnol. 24(4):695–721

Dean B. 2003. At the margins of power: gender hierarchy and the politics of ethnic mobilizationamong the Urarina. In At the Risk of Being Heard: Identity, Indigenous Rights, and PostcolonialStates, ed. B Dean, JM Levi, pp. 217–54. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press

De la Cadena M. 2000. Indigenous Mestizos: The Politics of Race and Culture in Cuzco, Peru,1919–1991. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

De la Cadena M. 2001. Comments: ambiguity and contradiction in the analysis of race and thestate. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 6(2):252–66

De la Pena G. 2002. Social citizenship, ethnic minority demands, human rights and neoliberalparadoxes: a case study in Western Mexico. See Sieder 2002, pp. 129–56

Dıaz Polanco H. 1997. Indigenous Peoples in Latin America: The Quest for Self-Determination.Transl. L Rayas. Boulder, CO: Westview. 162 pp. (From Spanish)

Dombrowski K. 2002. The praxis of indigenism and Alaska native timber politics. Am. Anthro-pol. 104(4):1062–73

England NC. 2003. Mayan language revival and revitalization politics: linguists and linguisticideologies. Am. Anthropol. 105(4):733–43

Falk R. 2001. The right of self-determination in international law: the coherence of doctrineversus the incoherence of experience. In The Self-Determination of Peoples: Community,Nation, and State in an Interdependent World, ed. W Danspeckgruber, pp. 47–63. Boulder,CO: Lynne Rienner

Field L. 1998. Post-Sandinista ethnic identities in Western Nicaragua. Am. Anthopol.100(2):431–43

Fischer EF. 1996. Induced cultural change as a strategy for socioeconomic development: thePan-Maya movement in Guatemala. See Fischer & Brown 1996, pp. 51–73

Fischer E, Brown R, ed. 1996 . Mayan Cultural Activism in Guatemala. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press.245 pp.

French JH. 2004. Mestizaje and law making in indigenous identity formation in NortheasternBrazil: “after the conflict came the history.” Am. Anthropol. 106(4):663–74

Garcıa Canclini N. 1995. Hybrid Cultures. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press. 293 pp.Garfield S. 2001. Indigenous Struggles at the Heart of Brazil: State Policy, Frontier Expansion and

the Xavante Indians, 1937–1988. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. PressGarzon S, Brown RM, Richards J, Ajpub W. 1998. The Life of our Language: Kaqchikel Maya

Maintenance, Shift, and Revitalization. Austin: Univ. Tex. PressGiordani L. 2002. Llego la hora del Indio, sı o no?: the election of three indigenous represen-

tatives to Venezuela’s National Constituent Assembly. Soc. Justice Anthropol. Peace Hum.Rights 3(1–2):63–95

Gordillo G, Hirsch S. 2003. Respuesta a Carmen Bernand. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 8(3):179–81Gow D, Rappaport J. 2002. The indigenous public voice: the Multiple idioms of modernity in

Native Cauca. See Warren & Jackson 2002a, pp. 47–80Graham LR. 2002. How should an Indian speak? Amazonian Indians and the symbolic politics

of language in the global public sphere. See Warren & Jackson 2002a, pp. 181–228Gray A. 1997. Indigenous Rights and Development: Self-Determination in an Amazonian Commu-

nity. Oxford, UK: Berghahan. 354 pp.Gros C. 2000. Polıticas de la Etnicidad: Identidad, Estado y Modernidad. Bogota: Instituto Colom-

biano de Antropologıa e Historia. 216 pp.Gustafson B. 2002. Paradoxes of liberal indigenism: indigenous movements, state processes,

and intercultural reform in Bolivia. See Maybury-Lewis 2002, pp. 267–308Hale C. 1994. Between Che Guevara and the Pachamama: Mestizos, Indians and identity

politics in the anti-quincentenary campaign. Crit. Anthropol. 14(1):9–39Hale C. 1997. Cultural politics of identity in Latin America. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26:567–90Hale C. 2002. Does multiculturalism menace? Governance, cultural rights and the politics of

identity in Guatemala. J. Lat. Am. Stud. 34:485–524Hale C. 2004. Review of V Sanford Buried Secrets, Truth and Human Rights in Guatemala. J.

Lat. Am. Anthropol. 9(1):202–5


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

Harvey N. 1998. The Chiapas Rebellion: The Struggle for Land and Democracy. Durham, NC:Duke Univ. Press

Hendrickson C. 1996. Women, weaving, and education in Maya revitalization. See Fischer &Brown 1996, pp. 156–64

Hernandez RA. 1997. Between hope and adversity: the struggle of organized women in Chiapassince the Zapatista rebellion. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol 3(1):102–20

Hill J, ed. 1997. Ethnogenesis in the Americas. Iowa City: Univ. Iowa PressHill J. 1999. Language, race, and white public space. Am. Anthropol. 100(3):680–89Hirsch SM. 2003. The emergence of political organizations among the Guaranı Indi-

ans of Bolivia and Argentina: a comparative perspective. See Langer & Munoz 2003,pp. 81–102

Hodgson DL. 2002. Precarious alliances: the cultural politics and structural predicaments ofthe indigenous rights movement in Tanzania. Am. Anthropol. 104(4):1086–97

Horst RH. 2003. Consciousness and contradiction: indigenous peoples and Paraguay’s transi-tion to democracy. See Langer 2003, pp. 103–34

Jackson JE. 1999. The politics of ethnographic practice in the Colombian Vaupes. Identities6(2–3):281–317

Jackson JE. 2002a. Caught in the crossfire: Colombia’s indigenous peoples during the 1990s.See Maybury-Lewis 2002, pp. 107–34

Jackson JE. 2002b. Contested discourses of authority in Colombian national indigenous poli-tics: the 1996 summer takeovers. See Warren & Jackson 2002a, pp. 81–122

Jelin E. 1996. Citizenship revisited: solidarity, responsibility, and rights. In Constructing Democ-racy: Human Rights, Citizenship, and Society in Latin America, ed. E Jelin, E Hershberg,pp. 101–20. Boulder, CO: Westview

Kearney M. 1996. Conceptualizing the Peasantry: Anthropology in Global Perspective. Boulder, CO:Westview

Kearney M, Varese S. 1995. Latin America’s indigenous peoples: changing identities and formsof resistance. In Capital, Power, and Inequality in Latin America, ed. S Halebsky, R Harris,pp. 207–31. Boulder, CO: Westview

Kymlicka W. 1996. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. New York:Oxford

Langer ED, Munoz E, ed. 2003. Contemporary Indigenous Movements in Latin America. Wilm-ington, DE: Sch. Resour. 220 pp.

Laurie N, Andolina R, Radcliffe S. 2002. The excluded “indigenous”? The implications ofmulti-ethnic policies for water reform in Bolivia. See Sieder 2002, pp. 252–76

Li T. 2000. Articulating indigenous identity in Indonesia: resource politics and the tribal slot.Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 42(1):149–79

Little-Siebold T. 2001. Beyond the Indian-Ladino dichotomy: contested identities in an East-ern Guatemala town. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 6(2):176–97

Lomnitz-Adler C. 1992. Exits from the Labyrinth. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressLukyx A. 2000. Gender equity and interculturalidad: the dilemma of Bolivian education. J. Lat.

Am. Anthropol. 5(2):150–78Macdonald T. 2002. Ecuador’s Indian movement: pawn in a short game or agent in state

reconfiguration? See Maybury-Lewis 2002, pp. 169–98Macdonald T. 2003. Indigenous rights: configuring citizenships. ReVista Fall:10:7–10Mallon F. 1994. Reflections on the ruins: everyday forms of state formation in nineteenth

century Mexico. In Everyday Forms of State Formation: Revolution and the Negotiation of Rulein Modern Mexico, ed. G Joseph, D Nugent, pp. 69–106. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

Mallon F. 1996. Constructing mestizaje in Latin America: authenticity, marginality, and genderin the claiming of ethnic identities. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 2(1):170–81

Marcus G. 1998. Ethnography through Thick and Thin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. PressMartınez C. 2004. We are against the government, although we are the government: state

institutions and indigenous migrants in Baja California in the 1990s. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol.9(2):352–408

Maybury-Lewis D, ed. 2002. The Politics of Ethnicity: Indigenous Peoples in Latin American States.Cambridge, MA: David Rockefeller Cent. Lat. Am. Stud., Harvard Univ. Press. 386 pp.

Montejo V. 1999. Voices from Exile: Violence and Survival in Modern Maya History. Norman:Univ. Okla. Press

Montejo V. 2005. Maya Intellectual Renaissance: Identity, Representation, and Leadership. Austin:Univ. Tex. Press. In press

Montejo V, Akab’ Q. 1992. Brevısima Relacion Testimonial de la Continua Destruccion delMayab’(Guatemala). Providence, RI: Maya Sch. Netw.

Muehlebach A. 2001. “Making place” at the United Nations: indigenous cultural politics andthe U.N. Working Group on Indigenous Politics. Cult. Anthropol. 16(3):415–48

Nash J. 2001. Mayan Visions: The Quest for Autonomy in an Age of Globalization. New York:Routledge

Nelson D. 1999. A Finger in the Wound: Body Politics in Quincentennial Guatemala. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press. 427 pp.

Occhipinti L. 2003. Claiming a place: land and identity in two communities in NorthwesternArgentina. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 8(3):155–74

O’Connor E. 2003. Indians and national salvation: placing Ecuador’s indigenous coup of Jan-uary 2000 in historical perspective. See Langer & Munoz 2003, pp. 65–80

Ong A. 1999. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham, NC: DukeUniv. Press

Padilla G. 1996. La ley y los pueblos indıgenas en Colombia. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 1(2):78–97Pallares A. 2002. From Peasant Struggles to Indian Resistance: The Ecuadorian Andes in the Late

Twentieth Century. Norman: Univ. Okla. PressPlant R. 2002. Latin America’s multiculturalism: economic and agrarian dimensions. See Sieder

2002, pp. 208–26Radcliffe SA. 2000. Entangling resistance, ethnicity, gender and nation in Ecuador. In Entan-

glements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance, ed. JP Sharp, P Routledge, C Philo,R Paddison, pp. 164–81. London: Routledge

Rajagopal B. 2003. International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements and Third WorldResistance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 343 pp.

Ramırez MC. 2002. The politics of identity and cultural difference in the Putumayo: claimingspecial indigenous rights in Colombia’s Amazon. See Maybury-Lewis 2002, pp. 135–68

Ramos AR. 1994. The hyperreal Indian. Crit. Anthropol. 14(2):153–71Ramos AR. 1998. Indigenism: Ethnic Politics in Brazil. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press. 326 pp.Rappaport J, ed. 1996. Ethnicity reconfigured: indigenous legislators and the Colombian Con-

stitution of 1991. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 1(2):2–165Rappaport J. 2005. Intercultural Utopias: Public Intellectuals, Cultural Experimentation, and Ethnic

Pluralism in Colombia. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press. In pressRappaport J, Dover R. 1996. The construction of difference by native legislators: assessing

the impact of the Colombian Constitution of 1991. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. Spec. Issue1(2):22–45

Raxche’ (Guajan Rodrıguez D). 1995. Las ONGs y las Relaciones Interetnicas. Guatemala City:Editorial Cholsamaj


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

Raxche’ (Guajan Rodrıguez D). 1996. Maya culture and the politics of development. See Fischer& Brown 1996, pp. 74–88

Reed R. 2002. New rules for the game: Paraguayan indigenous groups and the transition todemocracy. See Maybury-Lewis 2002, pp. 309–28

Rubin JW. 2004. Meanings and mobilizations: a cultural politics approach to social movementsand states. Lat. Am. Res. Rev. 39(3):106–42

Rus J, Hernandez RA, Mattiace S, ed. 2003. Mayan Lives, Mayan Utopias: The Indigenous Peoplesof Chiapas and the Zapatista Rebellion. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 306 pp.

Sam Colop E. 1996. The discourse of concealment and 1992. See Fischer & Brown 1996, pp.107–13

Sanchez E. 2000. The tutela system as a means of transforming the relations between the stateand the indigenous peoples of Colombia. See Assies 2000, pp. 223–44

SAR Annual Report 2004. Santa Fe, NM: Sch. Am. Res.Sawyer S. 2004. Crude Chronicles: Indigenous Politics, Multinational Oil, and Neoliberalism in

Ecuador. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press. 294 pp.Schirmer J. 1996. The looting of democratic discourse by the Guatemalan military: implications

for human rights. In Constructing Democracy: Human Rights, Citizenship, and Society in LatinAmerica, ed. E Jelin, E Hershberg, pp. 85–97. Boulder, CO: Westview

Schwittay A. 2003. From peasant favors to indigenous rights: the articulation of an indigenousidentity and land struggle in northwestern Argentina. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 8(3):127–54

Selverston-Scher M. 2001. Ethnopolitics in Ecuador: Indigenous Rights and the Strengthening ofDemocracy. Miami: Univ. Miami, North-South Cent. 152 pp.

Sieder R, ed. 2002. Multiculturalism in Latin America: Indigenous Rights, Diversity and Democracy.New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 280 pp.

Sierra MT. 1995. Articulaciones entre ley y costumbre: estrategias jurıdicas de los nahuas. InPueblos Indıgenas Ante el Derecho, ed. V Chenaut, MT Sierra, pp. 101–23. Mexico City:Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologıa Social; Centro Francesde Estudios Mexicanos Centroamericanos

Smith CA, ed. 1990. Guatemalan Indians and the State: 1540–1988. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press.316 pp.

Smith CA. 1995. Race-class-gender ideologies in Guatemala: modern and anti-modern forms.Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 37:723–49

Speed S. 2002. Global discourses on the local terrain: human rights and indigenous identity inChiapas. Cult. Dyn. 14(2):205–28

Starn O. 1991. Missing the revolution: anthropologists and the war in Peru. Cult. Anthropol.6(1):13–38

Starn O. 1999. Nightwatch: The Politics of Protest in the Andes. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.Starn O. 2003. Villagers at arms: war and counterrevolution in the Central South Andes. See

Langer & Munoz 2003, pp. 135–68Stavenhagen R. 2002. Indigenous peoples and the state in Latin America: an ongoing debate.

See Sieder 2002, pp. 24–44Stephen L. 1997. Redefined nationalism in building a movement for indigenous autonomy in

Southern Mexico. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 3(1):72–101Stephen L. 2002. Zapata Lives! Histories and Political Culture in Southern Mexico. Berkeley: Univ.

Calif. Press. 399 pp.Taylor C. 1994. The politics of recognition. In Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recog-

nition, ed. A Gutman, pp. 25–73. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. PressTicona E. 2000. Organizacion y liderazgo Aymara, 1979–1996. La Paz: Universidad de la

Cordillera, AGRUCO


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-27 ARI 25 August 2005 15:12

Tilley VQ. 2002. New help or new hegemony? The transnational indigenous peoples’ move-ment and “Being Indian” in El Salvador. J. Lat. Am. Stud. 34(3):525–54

Turner T. 2002. Representation, polyphony, and the construction of power in a Kayapo video.See Warren & Jackson 2002a, pp. 229–50

Van Cott DL. 1995. Indigenous peoples and democracy: issues for policymakers. In IndigenousPeoples and Democracy in Latin America, ed. DL Van Cott, pp. 1–28. New York: St. Martin’s

Van Cott DL. 2000. The Friendly Liquidation of the Past: The Politics of Diversity in Latin America.Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pittsburgh Press. 340 pp.

Van Cott DL. 2002. Constitutional reform in the Andes: redefining indigenous-state relations.See Sieder 2002, pp. 45–73

Van Cott DL. 2003. Indigenous struggle. Lat. Am Res. Rev. 38(2):220–33Van Cott DL. 2005. From Movements to Parties in Latin America: The Evolution of Ethnic Politics.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. In pressVarese S. 1996. The new environmentalist movement of Latin American indigenous people.

In Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous People and Intellectual Property Rights, ed. SB Brush,D Stabinsky, pp. 122–42. Washington, DC: Island

Velazques Nimbatuj A. 2005. Entre el cuerpo y la sangre de Guatemala. Mesoamerica 47:Inpress

Villalon ME. 2002. Do differences engender rights? Indian and Criollo discourses over minorityrights at the Venezuelan National Constituent Assembly. Soc. Justice Anthropol. Peace Hum.Rights 3(1–2):8–42

Wade P. 1997. Race and Ethnicity in Latin America. London: Pluto. 152 pp.Wade P. 2002. Introduction: the Colombian Pacific in perspective. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol.

7(2):2–33Watanabe JM, Fischer EF, ed. 2004. Pluralizing Ethnography: Comparison and Representation in

Maya Cultures, Histories, and Identities. Santa Fe: Sch. Am. Res. Press. 353 pp.Warren J. 2001. Racial Revolutions: Antiracism and Indian Resurgence in Brazil. Durham, NC:

Duke Univ. Press. 363 pp.Warren KB. 1998. Indigenous Movements and their Critics: Pan-Maya Activism in Guatemala.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. 288 pp.Warren KB. 2001. Introduction. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 6(2):90–105Warren KB, Jackson JE, ed. 2002a. Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation and the State in

Latin America. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press. 294 pp.Warren KB, Jackson JE. 2002b. Introduction. See Warren & Jackson 2002a, pp. 1–46Whitten NE. 2004. Ecuador in the New Millennium: 25 years of democracy. J. Lat. Am.

Anthropol. 9(2):439–60Wilson R. 1995. Shifting frontiers: historical transformations of identities in Latin America.

Bull. Lat. Am. Res. 14(1):1–7Yashar D. 1996. Indigenous protest and democracy in Latin America. In Constructing Demo-

cratic Governance: Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1990s, Themes and Issues, ed. JDomınguez, A Lowenthal, pp. 87–105. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press

Yashar D. 1999. Democracy, indigenous movements, and the postliberal challenge in LatinAmerica. World Politics 52(1):76–104

Yashar D. 2005. Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and thePostliberal Challenge. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Yrigoyen R. 2002. Peru: pluralist constitution, monist judiciary—a post-reform assessment.See Sieder 2002, pp. 157–83

Zamosc L. 2003. Agrarian protest and the Indian movement in the Ecuadorian highlands. SeeLanger & Munoz 2003, pp. 37–64


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 34, 2005

Contents

FrontispieceSally Falk Moore � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � xvi

Prefatory Chapter

Comparisons: Possible and ImpossibleSally Falk Moore � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Archaeology

Archaeology, Ecological History, and ConservationFrances M. Hayashida � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �43

Archaeology of the BodyRosemary A. Joyce � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 139

Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The InadequateResponseNeil Brodie and Colin Renfrew � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 343

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 429

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 575

Biological Anthropology

Early Modern HumansErik Trinkaus � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 207

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

The Ecologies of Human Immune FunctionThomas W. McDade � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 495

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Linguistics and Communicative Practices

New Directions in Pidgin and Creole StudiesMarlyse Baptista � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �33

Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of LanguageWilliam F. Hanks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �67

Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast AsiaN.J. Enfield � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 181

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 269

Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 293

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 409

Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 549

Sociocultural Anthropology

The Cultural Politics of Body SizeHelen Gremillion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �13

Too Much for Too Few: Problems of Indigenous Land Rights in LatinAmericaAnthony Stocks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �85

Intellectuals and Nationalism: Anthropological EngagementsDominic Boyer and Claudio Lomnitz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 105

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 121

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual TechnologiesDeborah Poole � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 159

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 231

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 253

The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of LifeSharon R. Kaufman and Lynn M. Morgan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 317

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 385

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 409

The Evolution of Human Physical AttractivenessSteven W. Gangestad and Glenn J. Scheyd � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 523

Mapping Indigenous LandsMac Chapin, Zachary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 619

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 667

Enhancement Technologies and the BodyLinda F. Hogle � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 695

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pena � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 717

Surfacing the Body InteriorJanelle S. Taylor � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 741

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Theme 1: Race and Racism

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 231

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 269

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 575

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 667

Theme 2: Indigenous Peoples

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 121

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 253

Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 293

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 385

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 429

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 549

x Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pena � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 717

Indexes

Subject Index � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 757

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 26–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 771

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 26–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 774

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology chaptersmay be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents xi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:549

-573

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew O

rlea

ns o

n 07

/11/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

indigenous movements in latin america, 1992–2004: controversies, ironies, new directions

Documents