steps to a political ecology of amazoniarfw5w4

Tipit: Journal of the Society for theAnthropology of Lowland South

AmericaVolume 2, Issue 2 2004 Article 2

Steps to a Political Ecology of Amazonia

Steven L. Rubenstein

Ohio University, [email protected]

Copyright c2004 by the authors. Tipit: Journal of the Society for the Anthropol-ogy of Lowland South America is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress).http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti


Steven L. Rubenstein

Abstract

Many recent studies of Amazonia have documented the ways in which agents of the state orcapital seek to colonize not only indigenous land and labor, but indigenous desires as well. Thiscolonization of the third kind has disastrous consequences: recently, William Fisher asked, Why... did it seem that Xikrin would sell their grandchildrens environmental birthright just at themoment when reservations were finally being demarcated and boundaries guaranteed for genera-tions to come? Here I argue that this sort of question must become one of the central concernsof Amazonian ethnology. Drawing on work by Fisher and others, I review the value of politicalecology approaches to answering such questions. I argue that political ecology must be informedby a broad notion of politics, one that centers on complex operations of power, especially the re-lationship between power and desire. Such a political ecology, informed both by poststructuralistconcerns, a commitment to grounded ethnography, and a sophisticated theory of agency is well-equipped to make a serious contribution to our understanding of this problem, and is especiallytimely for Amazonian ethnography.

Muchos estudios recientes de Amazonia han documentado las maneras a traves de las cualesagentes del estado o del capital procuran colonizar no solo la tierra y el trabajo indgenas sinotambien los deseos de los indgenas. Esta colonizacion tiene consecuencias desastrosas: recien-temente, William Fisher pregunto por que . . . pareca que los Xikrin venderan los patrimoniosambientales de sus nietos justo en el momento en que las reservas estaban finalmente siendo de-marcadas y sus fronteras garantizadas para las generaciones por venir? En este ensayo, propongoque esta cuestion debe convertirse en una preocupacion central de la etnologa amazonica. Uti-lizando el trabajo de Fisher y otros, repaso la importancia del enfoque sobre ecologa polticapara responder a preguntas como la de Fisher. Propongo que la ecologa poltica debe incluir unconcepto amplio de la poltica, uno que se centre en las operaciones complejas del poder, espe-cialmente en la relacion entre poder y deseo. Una ecologa poltica que incluya preocupacionespos-estructuralistas, una etnografa bien fundamentada, y una teora sofisticada de la agencia, seadecuara para hacer una contribucion seria a nuestro entendimiento de este problema, y seraespecialmente oportuna para la etnografa amazonica actual.

Acknowledgments: I am grateful for the comments and suggestions of a number of colleagues asI was working on this article: Michel Alexiades, Claire Cesareo, Kirk Dombrowski, AnnCorinneFreter-Abrams, Brad Jokisch, Chris Kyle, Matthew Lauer, Leda Leitao Martins, Daniela Peluso,Paul Robbins, and Angela Torresan. I also wish to acknowledge the helpful comments of twoanonymous Tipit referees.


STEVEN L. RUBENSTEINDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, Ohio [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

In 1892, when Franz Boas served as assistant to FrederickWardPutnam,theheadoftheDepartmentofEthnologyandArchaeologyforthe ChicagoWorlds Fair and the Columbian Exposition, he broughtfourteenKwakiutlindividualsfromFortRupert,BritishColumbia,alongwiththedisassembledvillageofSkidegatefromQueenCharlotteIsland,toputondisplay.ThereassembledvillagewassituatednexttotheLeatherand Shoe Trades Building, providing visitors with an opportunity toreflectonwhatthemorefashion-orientedmighttodaycallapostmodernjuxtapositionbetweenthetraditionalandthemodern.Nevertheless,whenBoascommissionedphotographsoftheIndians1performingvariousrituals,heplacedawhitesheetbehindtheperformerstomaskthesurroundingexhibits(Hinsley1991:350). Arguably,whathaschangedinthelastonehundredyearsisnottheproliferationofsuchjuxtapositions,butratherourwillingnesstoseethem.Indeed,sometimebetweentheendoftheVietnamWarandtheendoftheColdWar,thistaskofexaminingthemeaningofsuchjuxtapositionsbecameacentralpreoccupationamonganthropologistswhorespondedwithavarietyofnewapproaches,suchaspoliticaleconomy,poststructuralism,andpostmodernism.2 Someof the issues central to political economy,suchastherelationshipbetweenregionaltradeandlocalinequality,wereanticipated by cultural ecologists using a Boasian notion of culture asfluidinthe1940s(Mishkin1940;Lewis1942;Jablow1951;andSecoy1953).Theirworkstilloffersvaluablemodelsfortheethnographicstudiesof indigenouspeopleswhosehistoriesareshapedby largerpoliticalandeconomicforces.Inthemid-tolate-1980s,severalscholars(e.g.,SchminkandWood1987)arguedforanddevelopedapoliticalecologyapproachthatdrewonboth cultural ecology andpolitical economy, but inmanycasesthewordpoliticalsignaledaconcernforpublicpolicy.Thisarticlearguesforabroadernotionofpolitics,onethatcentersontheoperationsofpower.

Tipit(2004)2(2):1311762004SALSA 131ISSN1545-4703PrintedinUSA

1

Rubenstein: Steps to a Political Ecology of Amazonia

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2004

132 Steven L. Rubenstein

Moreover,Iarguethatsuchapoliticalecologycanandshouldarticulatewithpoststructuralism.Itshoulddosoinawaythatwouldfurtherexposeso-calledpostmodernjuxtapositionsandfurthertheanalysisoftheproductionandtheoperationofpersistentbinariesespeciallynature/cultureanditsproxies (suchas savageorprimitive/civilizedand traditional/modern)that often color our understandingof both indigenouspeoples and theenvironmentsinwhichtheylive.Althoughsomeopposepoliticalecologyand poststructuralism in terms of this binary (through another proxy,materialist/idealist),Ibelievethatbothprovidecomplementarystrategiesfor transcending this opposition. On the one hand, political ecologyprovides a single language for describing an environment that includesabiotic,biotic,andsocialelements.Ontheotherhand,poststructuralismprovidestechniquesfordeconstructingbinaryoppositions.Together,theseapproachesrevealthatsuchoppositionshavepowernotbecauseideashaveepistemologicalprimacyovermatter,butbecausetheseparticularideasaretheeffectsofpoliticaldynamics,andhavethepoliticaleffectofdisguisingtheverydynamicsthroughwhichtheyareproduced. Therearereasonsthisapproachtobinaryoppositionsisnotmerelyanacademicexercise.First,suchbinariesareoftenusedagainstindigenouspeople,suchasthosefoundinlowlandAmazonia.ThiswasthecasewiththeKayapintheearly1990s.Inresponsetomegadevelopmentprojects(Fisher 1994), the Kayap leadership organized a heroic, and largelysuccessful,struggleagainsttheBrazilianstate(seealsoTurner1991;1992).WhenjournalistsandenvironmentalistsdiscoveredthatKayapwerealsowilling to profit from the commercializationof lumber, these leadersandtosomeextent,theKayapingenerallosttheirheroicstature(seeConklinandGraham1995). Second,suchbinariesdisguiseordisplacepoliticalhierarchiesthatareoftenspatiallydistributed,forexampleperiphery/core(seeendnote13,intra,formorespecificdefinitionsoftheseterms).Someanthropologistshaveanalyzedthedilemmasfacingindigenousleaderswhomustrepresenttheirpeoplestothestateorcapital(e.g.,seeMurphy1974;Brown1993).Others(e.g.,Rubenstein2002)havefocusedonthedailycontradictionsfacingordinarymembersofsmall-scalesocietiesastheyareincorporatedinto the capitalist economy, along with the kinds of internal politicalconflictsthatoftenensue.Suchpeoplearenotonlyforcedintothemarketeconomy,theyarealsoseduced. Apoststructuralistpoliticalecologywouldanalyzenotonlythelargerpolitical and economic forces that shape their local interests, but theproductionofdesireaswell.Thisproductionis,Isuggest,simultaneouslymaterial and discursive. The lynchpin of this production is not the

2

Tipit: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America, Vol. 2 [2004], Iss. 2, Art. 2

http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti/vol2/iss2/2

Steps to a Political Ecology of Amazonia 133

oppositionbetweenmaterialanddiscursivecauses(oramaterialistversusidealist epistemology), but rather is the reciprocal relationship betweenstructureandagency.Thus,aneffectivepoststructuralistpoliticalecologymustalsoincorporateatheoryofpractice.InthisessayIdrawonseveralrecentethnographiesthatrepresentimportantfirststepstowardsapoliticalecologyofAmazonia. AttentiontosuchworkisparticularlytimelyforAmazonia, where struggles occur in indigenous communities hand-in-hand with indigenous complicity in desiring and supporting westernmechanismsthatunderminetheverylivelihoodofthesecommunities.

THE RISE OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL POLITICAL ECOLOGY

One of the main objectives of both Boasian and Malinowskianethnographywastorenderindividualbehaviorintelligible.Theyproposedthat individual action be understood in the context of culture, andonefunctionofBoaswhitesheetwastoisolatecultureasanobjectofstudy. Nevertheless, Boas insisted that culture is dynamic and subjecttohistoricalchanges,especiallyas traitspass throughthewhitesheet.Moreover, Boasian anthropology established the importance of culturefor an idiographic, rather than a nomothetic, science. Boas was notpositing culture as a cause (in opposition to noncultural, or material,causes), but rather as a context in which human action is meaningful.Onceanthropologistsestablishedtherealityofcultureinthissense,theycould explore why cultures varied without resorting to speculative andethnocentricexplanations. By the 1930sAlexander Lesser andWilliamDuncan Strongwereencouraging their students to remove the white sheet by presentingindigenousAmericansocietiesandculturesinbothregionalandhistoricalcontexts (seeVincent1990:231241). ThisapproachwaspioneeredbyBernardMishkin (1940),who studied the effect of the introduction ofhorses on Kiowa political organization and warfare, and Oscar Lewis(1942),whoexploredtheinfluenceofthefurtradeonBlackfootculture(relying heavily on historical sources). Later, Joseph Jablow (1951)documentedhowCheyennesocialorganizationandsubsistencestrategybetween 1795 and 1840 were determined by their position in tradenetworkslinkingwhitesandotherIndians,andFrankSecoy(1953)arguedthatGreatPlainsIndianssocialorganizationandmilitarytacticschangedashorses,introducedbytheSpanishinthesouth,diffusednorth,andguns,introducedbytheBritishandFrenchintheeast,diffusedwest.Althoughtheirfocusontheflowoftechnologiesacrossculturalboundariesgreatly

3




broadenedourunderstandingofNativeAmericansashistoricalsubjects,theypaidlessattentiontotheflowofdiscourses(e.g.,aboutculture,history,or colonialism) and to the roleofhumanagency in theseflows. TheirapproachwasneverinstitutionalizedinAmericananthropology,perhapsbecauseitsemphasisonWesterncolonialismwasuncongenialtocold-waraudiences. Contemporary anthropological political ecology suggests a returntotheprojectbegunbyLesserandStrong.3 Thismaybeaccomplishedthroughattemptstobringtogetherculturalecologyandpoliticaleconomy(e.g., Little 1999:225; see Bryant 1998, Blaikie 1999, andWatts 2000for slightly different genealogies and discussions of current trends bygeographers).4 Itisdifficulttoreconstructanaccurategenealogyoftheconjunction of cultural ecology andpolitical economy. EricWolf usedthetermpoliticalecology(1972),butanthropologistMarianneSchminkandsociologistCharlesH.Wood(1987:39),andanthropologistThomasE.Sheridan(1988:xvi)separatelyclaimtohavedevelopedthisapproach,while geographers Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) explicitly called for aregionalpoliticalecology thatwouldsynthesizepoliticaleconomyandhumanecology.5 However, earlierworksbygeographerMichaelWatts(1983)andPeterLittleandMichaelHorowitz(1987)havethenecessaryelements, as does sociologist Stephen Bunkers ecological model ofunequaldevelopment(1985).6

A POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF AMAZONIA

Space considerations leave no room for a review of the importantcontributions that cultural ecology has made to our understanding ofrainforest ecologies and the ways different societies adapt to such anenvironment,orofongoingdebatesamongpoliticaleconomistsconcerningtheorganizationoftheglobaleconomy.7Myintentionisonlytoopenupdiscussiononanissueunderrepresentedintheliterature.Whereasmanypoliticalecologistsareconcernedwithproposingandanalyzingtheeffectsofpoliciespertinenttotherelationshipbetweenapopulationanditsbioticandabioticenvironment,thisessayismeanttocallattentiontothepoliticstheformationanddeploymentofdifferentkindsofpower,includingthepowertoincitedesirebehindnewrelationshipsbetweenbothstatesandindigenouspeopleandtheirbioticenvironment.Moreover,suchaprojectrequires a political ecology defined not in terms of its consideration ofthenaturalenvironmentandhumanactionasindependentvariables,butrather in its attention to human/environmental interaction at different

4




scales.8

Amazonian Cosmographies and Territorial Disputes

PaulLittlehasrecentlyarticulatedavisionofsuchapoliticalecology,which,he argues, should focusontheoccupationof and struggleovergeographic space as well as the definition of, rights to, and use of theresourcescontainedbythisspaceandthebiophysicaleffectsofthatuse(2001:4).CitingBoas(1940:639647),Littleunderstandsthisstruggleintermsofaclashofcosmographies,whichhedefinesasdistinctcollective,historicallycontingentidentities,ideologies,andenvironmentalknowledgesystemdevelopedby a social group to establish andmaintain a humanterritory(2001:5).Littlefurtherarguesthatdifferentcosmologiesclashatdifferentfrontiersfordifferentdurationsoftime,largelytiedtowhatHennessy (1978:12, quoted in Little 2001:8) calls cyclical booms indifferent commodities. Consequently, human territoriesaredispersedacrossscalesinoftenirregularandunpredictableways(2001:8). Little identifies various cosmographies of Amazonia that havebeen of importance in different places at different times: missionarycosmologies;mercantilecosmographiesofrubber,brazilnuts,agave,andcattleexploitation;nationaldevelopmentcosmologiesthatcreatedwoodpulp,mining,andpetroleumenclaves; andmost recentlyenvironmentalcosmologies that have created wilderness preservation territories andsustainableuse territories. Eachof thesecosmologieshasclashedwith,and on many occasions have transformed, indigenous cosmographies.Littlepresentshisapproachtopoliticalecologyasausefulwaytoanalyzeterritorialdisputes among indigenousgroups, caboclos, representativesofcapital and the state, andNGOs that continue to shape the economic,political, and social landscape of Amazonia (2001:410). There is noquestionoftheimportanceofunderstandingterritorialdisputes,ofsharingsuchresearchwith thepeoplewithwhomanthropologistswork,andofassistingtheminappropriateways(cf.Medina2003;Vidal2003).Littlesinsightthatnotonlyindigenouspeoplebutalsomerchantsandheadsofstatehavecosmographies,andthatunderstandingtheircosmographiesiscrucialforasophisticatedanalysisofland-disputes,islaudable.

Amazonian Cosmographies and Economic Articulations

As Little makes clear, however, the superimposition of differentcosmologiesnotonlyleadstoterritorialdisputes,italsolinksindigenouspeoplewithextralocalsystems,especiallythestateorcapital.Littleprovides

5




agoodexample inhisdetailedanalysisofonemercantile cosmography,theaviamento systemthatdevelopedduring theBrazilian rubberboombetweentheearlynineteenthcenturyand1913.Initially,accordingtoLittle,isolatednonindigenoustapperssoldtheirrubbertointermediaries.Bythelatenineteenthcentury,tradeandmarketswerereplacedbyrelationshipsdefinedbycreditanddebt.Intermediariesbegansupplyingtradegoodsoncredit,whichtapperscouldrepaywhentheybroughttheirrubbertothe tradingpost. However, intermediaries charged astronomicallyhighpricesfortheirgoods,whilepayinglowpricesforrubber. Tappersthusaccumulated a debt they could never escape. This debt, backed up bythethreatofphysicalviolence,meantthatrubbertapperswereeffectivelyunderthetotalcontrolofrubberbarons(Little2001:2730). Reflecting on a similar system involving indigenous peoples in theColombian and Ecuadorian Amazon, and the fact that this systemcoexisted with the enslavement of Indians,MichaelTaussig asks, whymaintain the appearancein effect, the fictionof trade with IndianswhenforallintentsandpurposestheIndianisaslave(1987:65)?Indeed,peons were often bought and sold like slaves, as white merchants andentrepreneursboughtandsoldoneanothersdebts.Throughthisprocess,somewhitesthemselvesfellintodebt,andthusdebtpeonage.Thus,debtsand credit bound all sorts of people in the Upper Amazon (1987:6669). The resultingdebt fetishism (1987:70)had themagical effectoftransformingaplacewheretherewasanabundanceoflaborbutadearthofcommoditiesintoaplacewherethereseeminglywasadearthoflaborand an abundanceof commodities. Under these conditions,paymentwasalwayssimultaneouslyanadvance(1987:70).Theconstantinflationof debt created a cosmography in which the desire for commodities isinsatiable.Inturn,thisledtoaninescapabledependenceoncommodityexchange.Itwasthroughthissystem,ratherthanthecreationofanythingclosetoafreemarket,thatIndiansofthePutumayowereintroducedtoandincorporatedintotheworldcapitalisteconomy. Taussigs point is thatmercantile systems such as debt peonage arenotjustpoliticalandeconomicsystems.Theyare,infact,culturalsystemsandcannotbeunderstoodwithoutanalyzing thecultural logicsof theiroperation.RecentworksbyFisher(2000)andPicchi(2000)showhowpoliticalecologycancontributetoouranalysesofsucharticulations,andrevealtheculturallogicsthroughwhichtheyoperate,andbywhichIndianscome to depend on the capitalist economy, even in the absence of anyterritorialdisputesorthebrutalitythataccompaniedthesystemofdebtpeonage. Insomecases, this isaccomplished through territorialization(protectionagainst,ortheresolutionof,territorialdisputes)itself.Inother

6




casesitworksthroughamechanismsimilartodebtpeonage,exceptthatcoercionhasbeenreplacedbyseduction.

Sustainable Production

In a recent study of theBakair,DebraPicchi argues that politicalecologymodelsthathingeonclassrelationsareoflittleuseintheAmazon(2000:8).Instead,shecallsattentiontodemographicsandfoodproduction.Nevertheless,herfindingsraisequestionsthathavebeencentraltostudentsofclassrelations,suchasthewaysbywhichsubordinationistransformedinto self-subordination, local production is transformed by regional,national,andinternationalsystemsofexchange,andagencyisgroundedinandconstrainedbystructuresofinequality. As with other Amazonian peoples, the Bakair (who live in thecentral Brazilian state ofMatoGrosso) traditionally practiced swiddenhorticulture. One of FUNAIs (Brazils National Indian Foundation)mainactivities,however,hasbeentheintroductionofindustrialagriculturein theAmazon. TheseactivitiespresentBakairwithadifficultchoice.Industrialagricultureisnotsustainablebecauseitleadstoenvironmentaldegradation,butpopulationgrowthmeansthattheBakairrequiremorefoodthantraditionalmethodsprovide.Picchiasks:Shouldtheyabandon

Figure 1. Aerial view of Aldeia Pakuera, the largest Bakairi village

7




their new agricultural technology and return solely to their traditionalways?Howwillthataffectfoodandcashavailabilityonthereservation(2000:76)? Theseareimportantquestionsthatmeritfurtherreflection.AlthoughPicchiarguesthattheclassicanthropologicaldoctrineofculturalrelativismisinappropriatetoapplyinthesecases,Ibelieveittobeabsolutelycritical.Picchicharacterizesherownapproachaspragmatic,andarguesthatpeoplefirstandforemostmustensuretheirownphysicalsurvival(Picchi2000:7475).ObservingthatmanyBakairemploybothhorticulturalproductionfordomesticconsumptionandelementsof industrialagricultureforthemarket, she suggests that commercial production may buy theBakairsometimetodevelopnewstrategiestoensuretheirsurvival(2000:76). What constitutes a pragmatic productive or economic strategy,however,dependsonthedesiredoutcome.Itisherethatculturalrelativismisindispensable,preciselybecauseitcallsattentiontothecontextualnatureof values and choices. Littles notion of cosmographies provides oneusefulframeworkforexploringsuchcontexts.AnothergoodexampleoftheimportanceofattentiontoculturalcontextisfoundinLeslieSponselsedited volume (1995). In it Sponsel and his colleagues call attentionto indigenous people who have taken advantage of new resources andtechnologiesmadeavailablebytheWest,aswellasnonindigenouspeoplewhohave learned productive techniques from Indians. Concernednotonlywiththeindividualandcollectiverightsofindigenouspeoples,thesetheorists focuson theAmazonian ecosystemas awhole, aswell as onthedangersofdeforestationfornonhumanspeciesandtheglobalclimate.Viewed in this context, they suggest, indigenous forms of productionarenotonlypragmatic, theyare superior to industrialagriculture,whichtheyfaultforcausingexcessivedeforestation.Inturn,suchdeforestationthreatensnotonlythelivelihoodofpeople,butthesurvivalofnonhumanspeciesandthestabilityoftheglobalclimateaswell. Oneway to conceiveof pragmatics is in termsofsustainability, aconceptthatturnsouttobedifficulttomakeoperational(seeFautin1995forreviewsofdebatesfromavarietyofpointsofview).Environmentalistsgenerallydefinesustainabledevelopmentasthatwhichallowsthepresentpopulation toprovide adequately for itsneedswithout jeopardizing theabilityoffuturepopulationstoprovideadequatelyfortheirneeds(seeWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment1987).Theproblemwiththisdefinitionisthatbothadequatelyandneedsareculturallydefined,often political, and highly variable (Wikan 1995:636). Virtually everystudy ofAmazonian cosmologies suggests that people understand theirrelationship to the biotic environment not in terms of sustainable food

8




production,but rather in termsof thesustainableproductionof (fullysocialized) persons, through relations with spirits that cycle betweenpositiveandnegativereciprocity. An alternative approach to sustainability comes from ecologistswho study nonhuman populations. They generally use sustainable tocharacterize an ecosystem that is continually able to produce its owninputs (excluding solar or geothermal energy). Typically, research hasconcentratedondeterminingtheoptimumpopulationofagivenspeciesinagivenhabitat(optimumbeingafunctionofintra-andinterspeciescompetition for food, and predation), and, for humans, what culturalpractices(especiallyconcerningfoodproductionanddemography)mosteffectivelyreproducethatpopulation(seeCarneiro1995;Meggers1995;andMoran1995fordebatesoverthisapproach). In1979,however,StephenBeckermanreviewedmuchoftheliteratureonsubsistenceproductionandreachedaconclusionthatineffectarguesthatanyculturalecologyintheAmazonmustbepoliticalecology:

contemporaryAmazonianpopulationscantellusratherlittleabouttheeconomicanddemographicparametersofpreconquestAmazoniabecauseaspectaculardemographicdisasterhasintervened.Thedisasteris,ofcourse,theintroductionofOldWorlddiseases,oftencombinedwithpredationbywhites(1979:553).9

Beckermanspointimpliesaradicalshiftinthescaleoftheecosystemunderconsideration. Indeed, the fundamental issue in any study of ecologicalrelations,especially involvingsustainability, isthetemporalandspatialboundariesofthesystem.Thisisacrucialissuebecause,asEmilioMoranhaspointedout,researchquestionsandresearchmethodsareoftenscalespecific,butmanydebatesonAmazonian cultural ecology (havebeenproductsof )slidingbetweendifferentlevelsandscalesofanalysis,withoutexplicitrecognitionoftheshiftthathastakenplace(2000:77). AsLittlesuggested,politicalecologycanresolvethisproblemthroughitsattentiontothearticulationofdifferentsystemsatdifferentscales.Oneof the accomplishments of political economy has been to demonstratehow the growth of one open system (where inputs come from outsidethesystem)canleadtodegradation(i.e.,underdevelopment)ofanothersystem.Practicesthatlinkanindividual,ahousehold,acommunity,andaworldmarket,may be sustainable at one level and unsustainable atanother. Thus, in one of the founding works of political ecology, Schminkand Wood (1987) contrast subsistence activity dedicated to simplereproduction,typicalofAmazonianIndians,withexpandedproduction

9




dedicated to theprivate accumulationofwealth,promotedby the stateand capital. Bunker (1985) further observes that although in the coreof the world economy the regime of accumulation takes the form ofproductive activity that results in economic development, in peripheralareasliketheAmazonittakestheformofextractiveactivitythatresultsinunderdevelopment.Thisframeworkrequiresethnographythatnotonlyincludes both indigenous and exogenous actors, but that distinguishesbetween the productive and reproductive ends of different elements ofahierarchical structure at different scales. Inorder tounderstandhowindigenous people become invested in such systems, however,wemustturntothelocallysited,groundedethnographyPicchiadvocates.

Subordination and Self-subordination

ReturningtoPicchispointthathybrideconomicactivitiesmayhelpbuyBakair,andpresumablyotherAmazonianpeoples,sometime,aswellastoherquestionsabouttheimmediatecostsofreturningtotraditionalhorticulture, I amremindedof events frommyownfieldworkwith theEcuadorianShuar.Once,whenfishingwithmyShuarcompadre,wewerewalkingdownthemiddleofashallowstream.Hewascastinganettocatchbottomfeedersandhandingthecaughtfishtometocarry.Inoticedthathewaskillingimmatureandmaturefish,includinggravidfemales.Itoldhimthatifhecontinueddoingthis,therewouldbenofishnextyear.Heagreed.Wecontinuedwalking.Sometimelater,Irepeatedmypointand,ashegavemeanotherimmaturefish,heagreedagain.WhenImadethepointa third time,he stopped, turned towardsme,andasked,Butwhatwouldweeat,then? Mycompadreunderstoodthecausalrelationshipbetweenoverfishingandfooddepletion(someShuarcommunitieshaveputamoratoriumonfishingwith dynamite for precisely this reason). This story reveals thepossibility that what might appear to Indians to be pragmatic choicescouldactuallyleavethemdisadvantagedandwithlesstime.Mycompadresquestion,however,makestheimportantpointthatIndiansmaysometimesactundercircumstancesinwhichtheybelievetheyhavenochoice.Suchcircumstancesnotonlycallforasophisticatedtheoryofagencyorpractice,but for an inquiry into the structures that define the terms of humanaction.How, exactly, did theBakair come to desire new technologies?Whobenefits from the purchase or use of them? Dodifferent groupsorparticularindividualsbenefitindifferentways?Doestheuseofthesetechnologiesharmdifferentgroups indifferentways? Picchisnarrativesuggests that the answers have everything to dowith capital and state

10




penetration,butshedoesnotofferadetailedaccountandanalysisoftheseprocesses. Moreover, while her language suggests that these processesinvolveaclashbetweentraditionalandmoderncultures,poststructuralistswarnusthatsuchanoppositionmaskstheoperationofapoliticalfield,andthestrugglesbetweendifferentlypositionedagents.Analyzedintermsofpower,politics,andagency,pragmaticscouldbeunderstood in termsoftacticsandstrategies,aswellascompromisesandcollusion.Whenlackinganotionofpowerandatheoryofagency,however,it ishardtotellthedifferencebetweenpragmatismandfunctionalism. YetPicchi is clearlydescribinga system that, at the local level, canonlybecalleddysfunctional.Newtechnologies,includingpesticidesandfertilizers, aswell as population concentration,have led todepletionoffishing,overexploitationofthegalleryforest,andgeneralecologicaldamage(2000:139). She reports that the Bakair themselves fully understandthe environmental damage caused by industrial agriculture. Thus, sheobservesthatitisironicthatwhilethelong-termdangersassociatedwithsuchWesterntechnologyasfishingnetsandchemicalpesticidesarewellknownbytheBakairpeople,theattractionofsuchgoodsremainstrong(2000:140). TheseironiesmustbethestartingpointforasoundpoliticalecologyanalysisofAmazonia.Howpeoplecometoparticipateinandevendesiretheirownoppression isoneof themostpressingquestionsofour time.It was a central preoccupation for such critics of modernity as Marx,Nietzsche,andFreudaswellasforpoststructuralistssuchasFoucault,andDeleuzeandGuattari.PicchisstudydemonstratesthatoneofthegreatestproblemsfacingindigenousAmazonians(andtheAmazonianecosystem)is that they are increasingly drawn into practices that are necessary fortheirsurvival,butthatarenotsustainable.Theanalysisofsuchaproblemrequiresapolitical ecology that combinesanenlargedunderstandingofecologywithanunderstandingofpoliticsequallyattentivetostructureandagency. In the cases of both theBakair and the Shuar, I suspect that thisprocessisitselfaconsequenceofwhatmightbecalledterritorialization.For example, theShuarReservewas created in1935,only shortly afterEuro-EcuadoriansbegansettlinginwhatistodaytheprovinceofMoronaSantiago.TodaytheShuarhavelegaltitletoapproximately7,000squarekilometers. This reservehasprovided thebasis forShuar ethnogenesisandtothisdayShuarseeitasabasisfortheirethnicidentityandculture(Rubenstein2001). Since that timemost territorialdisputeshavebeenresolvedinthefavoroftheShuar,whohaveevenbeguncolonizinglandclaimedbyotherindigenousgroups(Little2001:152153).

11




The very creation of a bounded, protected reserve has providedthe basis for the kinds of dilemmas faced bymy compadre. Similar totheBakair, Shuar have experienced a population boom. Whereas theBakair populationmore thandoubled between 1959 and 1999 (Picchi2000:68),Shuarpopulationhasincreasedmorethansix-fold.Althoughtherearenoreliablepopulationrecordsfromthattime,MichaelHarnerestimatedthatin1956therewere7,830Shuar(1984:14).Accordingtothe 2001 Ecuadorian census, approximately 48,000 Shuar now live inMorona Santiago. As a result of increased population pressure withintheirterritoriallimits,thereisnowashortageofgame.VirtuallynoShuarfamilycansubsistentirelyonhuntingandgardeninganymore. However much the territorialization (combined with populationgrowth)oftheShuarhasledthemtodependonthemarket,Isuspectthatthereisanothermechanismatwork,onethatexplainsnottheirdependenceonbutrathertheirdesire forthemarket.ThroughoutmyfieldworkvariousShuarwouldpointinadirectionandexplain,Thatusedtobeourland,beforethesettlerscame.Theyseldommeantthatthelandwasoutrightstolen.Theyoftenexplainedthattheirfatherorgrandfatherhadtradedthelandaway.Mostofthetime,peoplesharedthiskindofstorywithmeinamatter-of-factway. One day, however, a close friend and informant repeated the storyandadded,Now, if Iwent there, theywouldnotevengivemeacoca-cola!Itwasstrange,Ithought,thatheseemedmoreangeredbythefactthathecouldnotjustdropinonhisneighborandbeofferedacoke,thanbythefactthatthelandwasnowownedbyasettler.AswithallShuar(andmanyananthropologist)heunderstoodthatwhenaShuarexchangedsomethinginreturnforland,hebelievedthathewasenteringintoasocialrelationshipbasedontheperiodicexchangeofgifts.WhereastheShuarbelieved that the exchange signaled thebeginningof a relationship, forthe settler it signaled the end of a relationship, that is, an act that, nomatter how equitable, was fundamentally antisocial (Shuar and settlersaliketalkofantisocialpossessivenessusingtheSpanishwordegosmo,orselfishness). Ibelievethatwhatsoshockedmyfriendwasnottheultimatelossofthatparticularparcelofland,butrathertherealizationthatanexchangecouldbefinal,andthatsomethingcouldbelost,forever.TheonlydefenseShuarhadagainstthisshockingmentalitywastoclaimtitletotheirownland,andtoarrangeforakindoftitlethatwouldbeinalienable.Clearlydemarcatedterritorialboundaries,however,constituteclearlydemarcatedsocial boundaries that, I believe, provide a material basis for a selfishontology.Thus,intheverymovethroughwhichShuardefendthemselves

12




againstthephysicalencroachmentofsettlers,theyinternalizethesettler(or capitalist) cosmography, including itsontologyof selfishness. OnceShuar hadmade thismental leap, I suspect they thought therewas noturning back. But, this is a speculation based on a passing complaint.Fortunately,thereisarecentethnographicaccountthatprovidesastrongbasis for an enlarged understanding of how indigenous peoples can bedrawnintothiscapitalistcosmography,evenabsentthethreatofforceorthelossofaccesstowildgame.

Production and Trade

WilliamFishers ethnography of theXikrin (one of fifteenKayapcommunities,whoselanguagebelongstotheMacro-Gfamily,andwholive in thecentralBrazilianstatesofParandMatoGrosso)highlightstherelationshipbetweenpoliticsanddesire.FollowingBrianFergusons(1995)exampleofincludingtradenetworkswithinthegeneralecologyofacommunity(andthusechoingtheLesser-Strongapproach),FisheraskswhyXikrinareobsessedwithmanufacturedtradegoods.Observingthattheydonotdistinguishbetweennecessitiesandluxuries,hearguesthattheintrinsicattractivenessortheinnatesuperiorityofWesternmanufacturedproductscanexplainneithertherelativelyrestrictedlistofdesiredgoodsnorthequantitiesofgoodsconsideredsatisfactorybytheXikrin(2000:2).Heisespeciallyinsistentthatanthropologistsnotbeseducedbytheobjectivequalityofthesegoods,evenwhentheyaredemonstrablysuperiortotheirlocallyproducedequivalents,fortobesowouldimplyanacceptanceoftheWestsownclaimsaboutitselfandhumannature.Instead,Fishersuggeststhatanthropologists should focusonhowsuchgoodsareacquiredandincorporatedintothelivesandsocietiesofindigenouspeoplesoperatingwithindifferentregimesofvalueandsocialstructure(2000:2).10 ThisprocessbeganwiththeterminationoftheSPI(IndianProtectionService) in1967, tobe replaced the followingyearbyFUNAI. In the1970s,theBraziliangovernmentoutlawedthefurtradeandpromotedtheconstruction of theTrans-Amazonian highway. Fisher begins with ananalysisofwhatisconventionallycalledsubsistencestrategy,thatis,foodproduction,especiallybittermanioc.Hepointsout,inanobservationthatisemblematicofpoliticalecology,thattheXikrinrelyonthisasastaplenotbecauseitisindigenous,butrather

becauseitcouldbeefficientlyproducedbywesterntechnologyandbecauseitservestheneedsofamoresedentarypopulationinvolvedintheextractiveindustriesbetterthandosweetpotatoes,maize,andevensweetmanioc...Itwas not environmental imperatives thatmade bittermanioc attractive but

13




Figure 3. (above) A Xikrin bachelor displays a canoe motor

Figure 2. (right) Xikrin-Kayap river pilot proudly poses with a motorized canoe used by members of a mens club and their families

Figure 4. A Xikrin elder, engaged in a traditional means of production, uses a mollusk shell to plane a bow to its desired thickness

14




Figure 5. A Xikrin man in a feathered headpiece

Figure 6. A Xikrin man makes a basket of pliable strips of a small vine

15




thepoliticaleconomyoffrontierlifeinwhichWesterntechnologybecameavailable(2000:82).

Prior to sedentarization,Xikrin, like otherG, relied on sweetmaniocwhenavailable,andwouldeatotherfoodswhenseasonablyavailable,orgoontreksinpursuitofotherfood.Today,however,XikrinliveneartheFUNAIpost,andtrekaccordingtothedictatesoftheBrazilnutcycle.Farinha (grated,pressed, anddriedbittermanioc) iswell-suited to thissituationbecauseitiseasilyportableandstoreswell(2000:83). This adaptationhas local aswell as regionalpolitical consequences,for it has led to an increased dependence on chiefs, who dispense fuelandlubricantsforthefarinhagrinder,aswellasothertradegoods(suchasshotgunshellsandprocessedfoods).Moreover,althoughthewomenofapparentlyautonomoushouseholdscultivatetheirownmanioc(bitterandsweet)andsweetpotatoes,mostofthebittermaniocisproducedingardensownedbychiefs.Thus,villagersacquiremostoftheirtradegoodswhenmenjoinamenscluballiedwithaparticularchiefthatcultivateshisgardens.Thechiefdoesnotpaythesemeninwagesorinkind,butprovides trade goods as tokens of friendship. Whereas sweet potatoproductionandexchangeconstitutelateraltiesamonghouseholds(andarelargely regulatedbywomen), bittermaniocproduction anddistributionconstitutesverticaltiesbetweenmenandtheirchief(2000:8291).Thus,chiefsponsorshipofcollectivegardensprovestobelessaboutsubsistenceandmore about legitimating political allegiances through amimickingofhouseholdauthority(2000:118).Thislegitimationiscrucialbecausestrongchiefsareneededto leveragegoods fromtheoutsideworldandpreservetheintegrityofreservationboundaries(2000:119). YetXikrinalsoresistthisemergentstratification,throughhalfheartedcomplianceoroutandoutlackofcooperationwiththeirchiefs(2000:176177).

Structure and Agency

Fishersanalysisofproductiondemonstratestheusefulnessofatheoryofpracticetopoliticalecology.Fisherdescribesstructuresfromdivergentpointsofview:ofmenandwomen,youngandold,chiefsandcommoners.Moreover,heshowshowactorswithsimilarresourcesandinterestsmaypursue different strategies. For example, although Xikrin have takenadvantageoftradewithotherBrazilians, theyhavealsodevelopedwaysofdisruptingextractiveproductionthatservetoprotecttheirautonomy.Inthiscontext,FisherpresentsXikrinsocialstructure(similartothatofotherG)asaframeworkforsocialactionthatsimultaneouslyrevealsbothasocialorderanditsownlimitations.Peoplewhoarepositionedwithin

16




Figure 7. The Xikrin use common regional techniques and equipment for processing bitter manioc into flour or farinhaa plastic tarp, manioc press, sieves, and basins. Although manioc flour has been familiar to the Xikrin at least since their encounter with the aviamento system of rubber exploitation in the early twentieth century, they only began making it themselves in the late 1960s

differentpartsofthisstructurestruggletofulfilltheirownobligationstooneanotherwhile competingover variousends. Theoverall result is aportraitofacoherentXikrinsocialorganizationthatisneitheressentialistnorhomogeneous. The combination of political ecology and some theory of practicegoes far towards alleviating what I suspect is a source of discomfort

17




with cultural ecology for many anthropologists, that is, its reliance onadaptationasacentralconcept.11Forsome,thiswordsuggestspassivityor functionalism. In fact, cultural ecologists have explored culturaladaptationsasactiveprocesses. ThusJohnBennett(1969)focusedonthe adaptive strategies people devise for coping with various problems(especiallythoseowingtothescarcityofvariousresources),andthewaytheybecomeinstitutionalizedintheformofculturalvalues(butseebelowforacritiqueofBennettsapproach).Isuggestthatthecontributionofpoliticalecologyistocallcriticalattentiontotheeconomicandpoliticalforcesthatshapetheenvironment,andtheroleofatheoryofpracticetocall critical attention to thepoliticalfields inwhich individuals activelyadapttotheirenvironment.

Figure 8. In a task from which women are barred, Xikrin men use canoe paddles to toast bitter manioc in an iron griddle to its final consistency to be bagged and stored

18




TOWARDS A POSTSTRUCTURALIST POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF AMAZONIA

Fishers analysis suggests thatpolitical ecology isnot justa tool forWesternpolicymakers,butpotentiallyatoolfordevelopingacritiqueofWesternprivilege.Afterall,thewhitesheetthatBoasemployedservednotonly topresent theKwakiutlassomehowpure. Viewedfromtheotherside, ithid theKwakiutl,andallowedpeople toviewtheLeatherandShoeTradesbuildingas if itexisted inaworldwithout indigenouspeoples.Toremovethesheetistoseebothsidessimultaneously.Politicaleconomy adds to cultural ecology a powerful framework for achievingthis double revelation. By moving beyond the conceptual distinctionbetweenthenaturalenvironmentandsocioeconomicbehavior,itoffersasinglelanguagefordescribingthenaturalandthesocial,thelocalandtheglobal.

Postmodernism

Tobemorefullyoperational,however,politicalecologymustgoonestep further and engage in discussions concerning postmodernism. Iunderstandpostmodernism,likemodernism,asaculturalmovementthatcan be analyzed in terms of the social, political, and economic systemswithinwhichitoperates.12MarshallBerman(1982)hasexploredthewaysmodernismexpressedpeoplesawarenessoftheconflictsandcontradictionsofmonopolycapitalism.Similarly,Jameson(1991)usefullycharacterizedpostmodernismastheculturallogicoflatecapitalism(seeMandel1978),whichemergedafterthecollapseoftheBretton-Woodsaccordsin1973.Postmodernismisidentifiedwithglobalization,thatis,aglobaleconomycharacterizedbythedecentralizationofcapitalaccumulationandcyclesofaccumulationthatoccuratsucharapidpacethatshiftsinthegeographiccenters of wealth and financial dynamism are short-lived (seeHarvey1989; Friedman 1999:5). In other words, these thinkers conceptuallydistinguishbetweenpostmodernityasanobjectivehistoricalcondition,andpostmodernismasaparticularcultural(orideological)responsetothissituation. Apoliticalecologyinformedbyanevenhandedcritiqueofbothpoliticaleconomyandpostmodernismwouldbethemostpowerfulethnographicresearchprogramtotackletheissuestheyraise.Atstakeinthedifferencebetweenpoliticaleconomyandpostmodernismisthequestionofwhetherjuxtapositionsofthetraditionalandmodern,andofthefamiliarandtheexotic, reveal some underlying orderwhich political economists, such

19




asImmanuelWallerstein (1974)provideusingsuchtermsascoreandperiphery,13or,tothecontrary,ifsuchjuxtapositionscallintoquestionany notion we may have of an ordered worldwhich postmodernistscelebrateusingsuchtermsasspectacle(Dubord1994)andcarnivalesque(drawing on Bakhtin 1984, and Barthes 1977). Although much hasbeenmadeof thisdifference,Iammoreconcernedwitha fundamentalunderlyingsimilarity:bothareethnocentric,inthattheyexpresstheviewat or from the core of theworld economy. Political economy,whichemphasizestheaccumulationofcapitalinthecore,reflectstheself-imageofmonopolycapitalism.Postmodernism,whichemphasizesthemobilitynotonlyofpeopleandobjectsbutoftheirsignifiers,reflectstheself-imageof late capitalism. The task for political ecology is to analyze spatiallydistributed fields of power, without privileging the perspective of oneagent(or,moreaccurately,position)inthisfield(forexample,byreifyinganyparticularhierarchy).

Figure 9. Xikrin boys holding model airplane. Does this represent the peripheral location of the Xikrin in the world economy, or the carnivaleque character of globalization?

20




Poststructuralism

IbelievethatitisstrategicallyandtheoreticallyusefultopursuePaulLittles(1999)andArturoEscobars(1996,1999)callforapoststructuralistpoliticalecology.14Poststructuralismprovidestheoreticalleveragetomovebeyondthecoresviewoftheworldwithoutfallingintoeithermodernismsfetishismoforderorpostmodernismscelebratoryabandonmentoforder.Minimally,Iunderstandpoststructuralismtorefertoasetofapproachesthat share the Enlightenment value of critique, but reject the mythichistories throughwhich critiqueswere expressed. In otherwords, oneneednothavefaithinprogressinordertobecriticalofthepast,andoneneednotrelyonnostalgiatobecriticalofthepresent. PoststructuralistslikeJacquesDerrida(1974)andBrunoLatour(1993)provideaninsightfulcritiqueofmodernEuropeanethnocentrism.15Theyunderstandthatthestudyofcultureandhistoryinvolvessomesortoforder,buttheyalsoinsistthatscholarlynotionsoforderarethemselvesculturallyandhistoricallysituated,andhaveideologicalfunctions.Specifically,theyhavearguedthattheconceptualoppositionofnatureandcultureisanepistemologicalstancethatEuropeanshaveusedtolegitimizeavarietyofformsofpower,includingpoweroverconqueredandcolonizedindigenouspeople,oftenthoughtofaslivinginastateofnature.Theyalsoappliedthiscritique to theconceptualoppositionbetweensavageryorprimitiveness(valorized by the appeal to nostalgia) and civilization (valorized by theappealtoprogress). Thisdivisionoftheworldintotwotypesofcultures(twotypesofpeople)is reflected in the theoreticaldivisionof labor inwhichanthropologistsused cultural ecology primarily to analyze aboriginal cultures, and usedfirstacculturationstudies,andthenpoliticaleconomy,toanalyzeculturessubordinatetocapitalorthestate.Latoururgesanthropologistsinsteadtodevelopasymmetricalsciencethattreatsequallybothnatureandculture,and indigenous andWestern societies. One such symmetrical sciencewouldbeanapproachthatappliesecologicalprinciplestostatesandthecapitalistcore,andthatappliespoliticaleconomyprinciplestoindigenoussocieties.Suchisthepromiseofpoliticalecology(seealsoChapin2004;ShellenbergerandNordhaus2004). Apoststructuralistpoliticalecologyneednotinvolvealiteral-minded(andoftensuperficial)appropriationofjargonassociatedwiththeoristssuchasDerrida,Latour,orFoucault. Itwould,however,minimallyimplyanawarenessthatbinariessuchasnature/cultureandtraditional/modernoften structure our own implicit knowledge, are themselves produced,andthatgoodresearchmuststruggleagainstthem.Itwouldrequirean

21




awarenessthattheveryexistenceofsuchbinariesareeffectsofpowerthatwecannoteasilydismiss sucheffectsasfalse,andthat theproductionand operation of these effects of power are themselves important areasof study. It is this kind of poststructuralism, offered byBrunoLatour(see alsoHaraway 1992), that Paul Little arguesmust be incorporatedintoecologicalapproaches(Little1999;seealsoAdger,Benjaminsen,etal.2001). Such an approach would not begin with a conceptual distinctionbetween culture and nature, or between natives and settlers, butmightshow how such distinctions become meaningful and even powerful,and how they come to be used, by whom, and to what effects. Suchan approachwould also seek to treat natural and social adversaries intermsofthesameanalyticalvocabulary(Law1987:114,quotedinLittle1999:257), andwould bring us closer to the visionLesser, Strong, andStewardallentertained.16Poststructuralismaddstothatvisionananalysisof the discursive dimensions of this situation. When resources, theenvironment,andsocietyareconceivedofinawaythattranscendsthebinariesimplicitinWesternthoughtandculture(Latour1994isespeciallyusefulhere,butseealsoworksbyhistoricalecologistssuchasBale1994andCronon1996),politicalecologybecomesaverypotenttoolforlearningmoreaboutpoliticsandpower.

The Discursive Production of Nature and Culture

Arturo Escobar (1996; see also 1999) characterizes postmodernityasaperiodinwhichknowledgeanditssignifiershavenotonlybecomecommodities, but highly valued commodities, the circulation of whichplaysacrucialroleintheworldeconomy.17Consequently,Escobarargues,whereas nature was once primarily a resource, the raw material outofwhichcommoditiesmaybemade, thevery ideaofnature isnowacommodity,aproduct(seealsoLefebvre1991).Inmyview,thehistoryoftheBakairreserveexemplifiesthisprocess.Insomewaysthereservehaspreservednatureasasourceofrawmaterialsforlocalproduction.Aslongas theBakairwere isolated from themoneyeconomy, the reservefunctioned to keep nature natural by making its land unavailable toBraziliansettlers. Infact, fromthebeginningthereservefunctionedtogivethestatecontroloverresourceexploitation,asfirsttheSPI(ServiodeProteoaosndios)andthenFUNAI(FundaoNacionaldondio)requiredBakairtotendstate-owned(until1989)cattle.Butthestruggleto protect nature from economic exploitation is part of a process inwhichnature itselfbecomesacommodityspecifically throughthe rise

22




ofecotourism.AsPicchiobserves,othersignifiersbecomecommodities:Bakairethnicidentityisnowacommoditytradedontheinternationalmarket(2000:xvi,161163). Similarly,theKayaphavesoughttoexploitsuchdiscoursesforpoliticalcapital, despite sometimes finding that whites can use such discoursesagainstthem.Thus,FishermentionsthatWesternobserversoftenseetheKayapsdesireformanufacturedgoodsasasignofcorruptionorethnocide.TheXikrinprovideanespeciallyimportantcase,becausetheKayaparerightlyfamousfortheirroleintheBrazilian(andglobal)environmentalistmovement.YettheywerealsovictimsoftheWesternbinaryofprimitiveversuscivilized,andthedoublestandardthatmasqueradesasromanticism,whenitwasrevealedthattheirleaderswereprofitingfromgoldminingandloggingontheirreservation(seeConklinandGraham1995). HowdoWesterncolonialordevelopmentpracticesproducesuchdiscourses?Whatisthefunctionofthesediscourseswithintheworldcapitalisteconomy?18ThefactthatoneelementoftheWestoffersIndianstradegoods,whileanotherelementsimultaneouslycondemnsthemforaccepting,isanironyworthfurtheranalysis. For themoment, Iwould suggest that one function of the nature/culturebinaryistomaskthepoliticalnatureoftheproductionofdesire.

Figure 10. Yakwigado mask dancing in front of Bakairi mens housespirit or commodity?

23




Figure 11. Bearing an assortment of firearms acquired between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s, Xikrin men join in a dance meant to produce a collective sentiment of fierceness

Figure 12. Fresh from a village ceremony, Xikrin chief Jaguar stoops to speak into the two-way radio with a neighboring Kayap village

24




AsFisherobserves(2000:2),itcanbeusedtosuggestthattheeffectsofdesire (acquiringor consuming specificgoods) are actually the causeofdesire.Putanotherway,itsuggeststhatspecificdesiresarenatural.Thealternativetothisviewisnotthatdesiresareculturallyconstructed(trueenough,thoughbanal)butratherthatwhatappearstobeeitherhumannatureorXikrincultureareactuallytheeffectsofaparticularfieldofpowerthatisneitheruniversalnorspecifictotheXikrin.Thisfieldofpowerisboth social and spatial. Fishers ethnography provides a good exampleofhowpracticetheoryandpoliticalecologycanilluminatethispoliticalfield.

The Material Production of Desire

FisheropenshisethnographyaskingwhyXikrinaresoobsessedwithmanufactured trade goods. This is not only a theoretically interestingquestion,itisinextricablylinkedtoamorepoliticallyurgentquestionhealsoraises:Why...diditseemthatXikrinwouldselltheirgrandchildrensenvironmentalbirthrightjustatthemomentwhenreservationswerefinallybeingdemarcatedandboundariesguaranteed forgenerations to come?(2000:193).GiventhatPicchisworkraisesasimilarquestion,specialistsshould now consider this one of the central questions in Amazonianethnology. According to Fisher, Xikrin commoners have come to see theirhousehold autonomy as dependent on alliances with chiefs, and chiefsunderstand that their own local autonomy depends on maintainingtrade relationswithWesterners. Althoughthisaccount isnuancedandinsightful,itcallsformoreanalysisofthefunctionofthisobsessionwithmanufacturedgoodswithinthe larger(i.e.,capitalist)politicaleconomy.Suchanalysiswouldrequiretheoriesofvalueandofdesire,andanattempttoimaginethearticulationFishersoablydescribesasaparticularmomentinthecontinuingincorporationoftheXikrinintothecapitalisteconomy. TheXikrinobsessionwithmanufacturedgoodsseemstoconfirmthatpillarofcapitalistcosmography,theeconomicdogmathathumandesiresare infinite. Theallianceofanthropologists,historians,andeconomistsknown as substantivists went to considerable lengths to debunk thisdogmasometimeago,demonstratingconvincinglythatwantsandneedsaresociallyconstructedorencodedinnoncapitalisteconomies,andthatso-calledeconomicactivitiesmayhaveotherfunctionsthanmaximizingutility (seeLeClairandSchneider1962). Indeed,Fishersethnographyprovidesasophisticatedexampleofthisphenomenon. Yetthisdogmaisnotjustafactualerroronthepartofeconomists.It

25




is,rather,asocialfactessentialtotheoperationofcapitalism.Manyhavearguedthatcapitalismisthemostproductiveeconomicsystemyetdevised,eventhoughitsuffersfromperiodicbusts.AlthoughthecycleofboomandbustFisherdescribesintheperipheryoftheworldcapitalisteconomyisthedirectresultofchangingtastesandtechnologiesatthecore,Marxistshaveanalyzedthecycleofboomandbustatthecoreintermsofcrisesofoverproduction. It is crucial to the continued operation of this systemthatdemandkeeppacewithrisingsupply,andthebeliefthatdesiresarenaturallyinfinitelegitimizesmechanismsthatgeneratedemand. Few,however,havegrappledwith theprocessbywhich thisdogmaisestablishedandnaturalized.DeleuzeandGuattaris(1983)readingofMarxprovidesoneusefulsuggestion. Theyobservethat theprocessbywhichpeople come to experience their desires as insatiable can also bedescribedastheprocessthroughwhichpeoplesdesires,formerlysociallycoded(sothatspecificsituationsorrelationshipscallforspecificexchanges),becomedecoded(notinthesenseoftranslatedbutratherinthesensethatanyregulationoforlimitstoexchangearebroken).19Forthem,theheart ofCapital isMarxs account of howEuropeans became decodedwhenall theycouldsellwastheir labor-power,andhowmoneybecamedecodedwhenitwascapableofbuyinglaborpower.InMarxsterms,fullydecodedexchange is thegeneral formofvalue inwhichanythingcanbeexchanged for anything, andwhichanalyticallyprecedes themoneyform(Marx1967:7075).SinceMarxsawlaborpowerasthesourceofallvalues,decodedmoneyappearstobeproductive,thatis,itisnowcapital(DeleuzeandGuattari1983:224227). Thequestionis,howdoesthisprocessofdecodingoccurtoday,outsideofEurope,especiallyinsocietieswhereobjectsofexchangeandexchanges,aswellashumanlabor,areheavilycoded?ThemoneyWesternersbringwiththemtotheAmazonisalreadydecoded,butanecdotesaboutIndianswhodonotunderstandmoneyarelegion.HowmightIndiansbepreparedtoenterthemoneyeconomy?Howdotheylearnthegeneralizedformofvaluethatconceptuallyprecedesthemoneyform?Atfirstglance,theXikrinmaynotseemanidealcasebecausetheyarenotyetsellingtheirlaborpower, and arenot yet integrated into themoney economy. But,in fact, trade goods become socially coded and regulated asXikrin usethemnotonlyinproductionbutinsocialreproduction.Thus,IbelieveFisherhaswitnessedasocietyonthevergeofexperiencingthisprocessofdecoding(seeBurke1996foranexamplefromAfrica).Theawkwardpositionofthechiefsisthelinchpin. Itis,ofcourse,thelaborpowerofcommonersthatproducestheBrazilnutsandotherforestproductsthataretradedforgoodsmanufacturedby

26




others indistantplaces. But, suchexchangeandthe localproductionthatmakesitpossibleiscontrolledbychiefs.Consequently,commonershavecometoseechiefs,intheirroleaschiefs,asproducers of trade goods...(2000:121).InMarxianterms,theyareproducersofexchange-value.SinceFUNAIandindependentBraziliansrelyonchiefstomobilizeBrazilnut collectionor to ensure local peace, and chiefs rely ongenerosity toensuretheloyaltyoftheirfollowers,Xikrinpoliticaleconomysuffersfromabuilt-ininflationaryneedforforeignmanufacturedgoods(2000:121). Thepoint isnotthatchiefsoughttobegenerous,whichisactuallycommon enough in theAmazon. Fishers account of this inflationarymechanismisasignificantcontributiontoAmazonianethnographyanda profound contribution to political ecology. It reveals that somethinglike the inflationofdebt thatTaussig (1987:6673) analyzed canoccurunaccompaniedbythebrutalitythatdefinedthemercantilecosmographyintheCaucaValleyduringtherubberboom,buttosimilareffect. Acontinuedinflationofneedsisaprocessthat,arguably,canonlyendwiththebeliefthatneedsareinfinite.Inthecontextoftheboomandbusteconomy,more trade goods are alsonew goods (inMarxian terms, theexpandedformofvalue).Eachnewcommodityofferedisanewexampleoftheinterchangeabilityofcommodities,arevelationthatallthingsareexchangeable,andtheessenceofwhatDeleuzeandGuattari(1983)calleddecoding.MeretradewithotherBraziliansprovidesaccesstonewgoods

Figure 13. The chief as producer of trade goods: drawing a crowd of villagers anxious for news and trade goods, a small aircraft discharges Xikrin chiefs returning from a nearby town

27




inadditiontotheforestproductsonwhichXikrinusedtorely.ButthisinflationarymechanismrevealstheWesttobeanewsourceofproductivityandfertilityamongtheXikrin.Inshort,itiscapitalismthatmodeofproductionthatconstantlyrevolutionizesitsownmeansofproduction(inotherwords,thatmodeofproductionthatproducesproduction)spreadingitsideologyandinfluence.Thus,exchangeitselfbecomesproductive.Marxcalledthiscommodityfetishism(Marx1967:7687).InthecaseoftheXikrinitoccursthroughthenotionthatchiefsthemselvesareproductive.Thecommoditizationoflaborisnotfarbehind.Xikrinchiefsresistthis,describing their dealings with commoners in terms of the morality ofkinship.Butcommonersarebeginningtotalkoftheirrelationshipinnewterms:whetherachiefpayswell,orpayspoorly,chiefspay(2000:187). MyinterpretationofFishersaccountofXikrindesirefortradegoodsmaysuggestableakfuture.ButFisherisneithersocertainnorpessimistic.Ashe suggests, suchapocalypticvisionsareoftenused tomobilizeandjustifysomeformofintervention,eitherbythestate,anNGO,orsomeotheractivistgroup.Althoughwell-intentioned,Fisherwarns,sucheffortsusually ignore or misconstrue local political practices and values, withunfortunateconsequences.ThepointisthatIndiansliketheXikrinhavea longhistoryof creative engagementwith their environment (whethernaturalorsocial,localorglobal).Inshort,historyisstillbeingwrittenbutnotjustbyWesterners.

CONCLUSION

Territorialstrugglesbetweenindigenouspeoplesandcattleranchers,goldminers,petroleumcompanies,andhydroelectricprojectshaverightlycaught the attention of anthropologists and the general public. Bycomparison,thegiftofamachete,somekerosene,orashotgunmayseemmundane.Moreover,asPicchiobserved,thefactthatmanyAmazonianIndianswanttheseandothermanufacturedgoods,andareoftenwillingtogotogreatlengthstogetthem,makesIndiansseemcomplicitinthedegradationofboththeirowncultureandtherainforestecosystem. ButasPicchisandFishersstudiesreveal,agentsofthestateorcapital(in their studies, FUNAI, extractive enterprises, or local merchants;elsewhere,ecotourismandNGOS)seektocolonizenotonlyindigenousland and labor, but indigenous desires as well. Although this may bea source of embarrassment or sorrow for some, it is also a significanttheoreticalproblem.Moreover,itmustbeunderstoodnotasanindividual

28




failing but as a political dilemma facing indigenous people, who areoften torn between what Little (2001:74186) termed developmentand environmental cosmographies. A political ecology informed bothby poststructuralist concerns, a commitment to grounded ethnography,andasophisticatedtheoryofagencyiswell-equippedtomakeaseriouscontributiontoourunderstandingofsuchproblemsasthese,andespeciallytimelyforAmazonianethnography.20 Although poststructuralism still triggers alarm bells for someanthropologists (especially those who conflate it with postmodernism),I argue that there is less of a gulf than somemight think between thepoststructuralist intellectual movement and the intellectual movementinaugurated by Boasian anthropologists. The poststructuralist critiqueordeconstructionoftheoppositionbetweenthesavage(orprimitive)andthecivilizedshouldsiteasilywithanthropologistswho, likeBoas,challenged this conceptual distinction (1940:284). The cold war didnot provide an environment conducive for Boasian anthropology, butanthropologistsmaybeabletoappropriatemuchofpoststructuralistthoughtasapost-coldwarmeansforcontinuingthecritical(thoughperhapsnottheempirical)elementsoftheBoasianproject.ToBoassmethodologicalinnovations(andresistancetograndnarratives),poststructuralistsoffertoolsforanalyzingtheWestsdiscourses,aswellasdiscoursesproducedbythoseithascolonized.Inthe1980santhropologistsappliedthiscritiquetothemselves(seeCliffordandMarcus1986;MarcusandFisher1986),butanthropologistsarefarfromtheonlyoneswhorepresentpeoplesintheperipheryoftheworldeconomy.Thiscritiquewouldbeveryusefulin analyzing thedevelopment and environmental cosmologies towhichLittlehasdirectedourattention. Other anthropologists are wary of the poststructuralist emphasisondiscourse (e.g.,Kuipers1989;Lett1997;Lewis1998;Reddy1997).However,itispreciselybecauseofanthropologyscriticalstancetowardsdiscourse and representationunderstanding them to be products ofchangingsocialrelationsthatpoststructuraliststhemselveshaveturnedtoanthropologyasamodelforstudyingandtheorizingourworld.Foucaultprivilegedanthropologyasthevanguardofthehumansciences(1970:378)andBrunoLatour argued that anthropology should be privileged as amodel for describing our world (1993:91). Latours (1993:100106)callforasymmetricalanthropologythatexploresthenetworksformedthroughmaterialcirculationsnetworksthatcrossconceptualboundariesbetweennatureandculture,orsavageandcivilizedfollowseasilyfrom Boas understanding of culture in terms of flows across porousboundaries (see Bashkow 2004). This approach, moreover, provides a

29




waytolinkGeorgeMarcussnotionofamulti-sitedethnography(1998)withEricWolf s(1982)attentiontotheconnectionstracedbytheflowsofdifferentcommodities(StanfordCarpenter,personalcommunication).These complementary approaches to the study of cultural flows andconfigurationsarecriticalifpoliticalecologyistomovebeyondthestudyofspecificconflictsover,orpoliciesconcerningtheuseofnaturalresources.The centralityof culture in eachof thesemodelsprovides abasis for amuch-expandedunderstandingofbothecologyandthepolitical. ThemodelsdevelopedbyLatour,Wolf,andMarcusnotonlyplaceparticularsocieties(suchastheShuar,theBakair,theXikrinKayap,etc.)withinamuchlargerpoliticalfield.Theyleadusbacktoanethnographythatmustbegroundedanddetailedifitistorevealtheworkingsofthesenetworksandflows.Itisherethattheconceptofculturalrelativismbothasamotivationforconductingethnographicresearchandasaprinciplewelearntovaluethroughourethnographicresearchiscentraltotheprojectofpoliticalecology.ItwasespeciallycentraltoLittlesstudyofdifferentcosmographiesandthefrontierswheretheyclash. Ihopetoshowthatculturalrelativismisessentialpreciselybecauseofthewaysitaddressestheveryreasonspoliticalecologistsmayhaveforrejectingit. AccordingtopoliticalscientistAlisonDundesRenteln(1988),mostphilosophers as well as anthropologists, following Ruth Benedict andMelvilleHerskovitz,understandculturalrelativismmoreorlessthewayphilosopherWilliamFrankenahasdefinedit:

whatisrightorgoodforoneindividualorsocietyisnotrightorgoodforanother,evenifthesituationsaresimilar,meaningnotmerelythatwhatisthoughtrightorgoodbyoneisnotthoughtrightorgoodbyanother...butthatwhatisreallyrightorgoodinonecaseisnotsoinanother(1973:109).

This formulation implies an absolute incommensurability of differentculturespossible,Ibelieve,onlyifoneassumesthatculturesareclearlyboundedandseparateandleadstotheconclusionthatdifferentculturesmustbeunderstoodandjudgedonlyintheirownterms. Thus,politicalecologistscanobjecttorelativismonpoliticalgrounds.JulianSteward(1948)equatedrelativismwithtoleranceandarguedthatanthropologistswouldeitherhavetotoleratethemostintolerableregimes(e.g.,Nazism),ortheywouldhavetobeutterlyintolerantofanysocietythatisnotitselftolerant.Thus,anypoliticaluseofthisrelativismwouldend in ridiculous positions. From this perspective, relativists have nobasisforcriticizinganyparticularculturalconfigurationorcosmography.Political ecologists could also object on ecological grounds. If culturesaretobeunderstoodonlyintheirownterms,thenwehavetodisregard

30




preciselythosethingstowhichecologistscallattentionthenetworksofinformation, technology, raw materials and manufactured goodsthatboth connect different societies and provide a basis for understandingthem. Renteln,however,hasarguedthatformulationsofculturalrelativism,suchasFrankenas,missthepoint.ShearguesthatthespiritoftheBenedict-HerskovitzprincipleismuchbetterexpressedinphilosopherPaulSchmidtsformulationthatthereareorcanbenovaluejudgmentsthataretrue,thatis,objectivelyjustifiable,independentofspecificcultures(1955:782).Thedifferencebetweenthisformulationandothersisnotsemantic.Schmidtsformulationthattheideathatpeopleunconsciouslyacquirethecategoriesandstandardsoftheirculturecallsattentiontoenculturationasthekeyto relativism (Renteln 1988:62). Thus understood, relativism is not ajustificationforanalyzingsocietiesasboundedandseparateentities,butratheraheuristicdevicethatexplainscross-culturalmisunderstandingandfacilitatescross-culturalcommunication.Itistruethatculturalrelativismmakesnosubstantivecontributiontopoliticalandethicaldebates(i.e.,itdoesnothelppeoplecomeupwithmoraluniversals).Butitdoesmakeacrucialprocedural contributiontopoliticalandethicaldebates,becauseitrequiresanyoneengagedinaconsiderationofrightsandmoralstoreflecton how their own enculturation has shaped their views. According toRenteln: There is no reasonwhy the relativist should be paralyzed, ascritics have often asserted ... But a relativistwill acknowledge that thecriticismisbasedonhisownethnocentricstandardsandrealizesalsothatthecondemnationmaybeaformofculturalimperialism(1988:6364). AsLittleandothershavepointedout,whenpeoplefetishizeculturaldifference,theclashbetweenindigenouscosmographiesanddevelopmentorenvironmentalcosmographieseitherendsinfrustrationorbecomesanexcusefortheapplicationofforce(eventhoughsuchforcemayappeartobeminimalorevenwell-intentioned,suchastherelocationofindigenouspeopletoaprotectedreserve,orthecreationofwild-lifereserves).21Intheseinstances,discoursesaboutculturearethemselvespoliticalweapons.Thedeconstructionofsuchdiscoursesisuseful,butinadequate.EthnographicresearchintheAmazon,butintheUnitedStates,England,Germanyandother industrializedcountries aswellthat is attentive toenculturationnotasamechanicalprocesssituated in local, interpersonalrelationshipsbut in ahistoricallydynamicpolitical ecologyaswell, is essential to anunderstandingofhowsuchdiscoursesareproducedandwork. In order to avoid understanding enculturation as a passive process,such ethnography must be informed by a sophisticated understandingofagency.Whatisatstakehereisnottherecognitionthatpeoplemake

31




choices given certain circumstances and a set of alternatives, but rathera radical rethinkingofboth theindividual subjectandsociety. Thisrethinking occurs in part through the study of how subjects, choices,and circumstances all take formwithin a political field. Earlier formsof political ecology often lacked this recognition. For example,WalterGoldschmidt(1983)faultedJohnBennettspoliticalecology(Bennettetal.1982)forfailingtoprovideanycriticalanalysisoftheemergingsystemofindustrialagriculture,theroleofclassandethnicbiases,andtheoperationofmarketforcesthatconstitutedtheenvironmentinwhichfamilyfarmershad toact. Moreover,Bennetts researchconceptualized individualactsintermsofrationalchoicetheoryandthemaximizationofutility. Thevalueofrationalchoicetheorycontinuestobeanobjectofconsiderabledebate among political scientists (see Green and Shapiro 1994). Buteventhoughsuchapproachesdoshedsomelightonthewaysindividualsperceivetheiroptionsandhowtheymakechoices,anthropologists,asEricWolf(1982:10)hasargued,shouldbewaryofanalyticmodelsthattakethe autonomous individual for granted. In contrast, practice theoriesunderstandbothsocialstructureandindividualagencyasongoingsocialaccomplishments,22andthatpeopleactcreativelywithinthesocialfield. Theories of practice offer alternatives to approaches that fetishizeindividual decision making, or that reify social structures. A centralelementofBourdieus(1977)argumentisthatoncetheelementoftimeistakenintoaccount,whatmighthaveappearedtobetheenactmentofrules instead reveals strategizing on the part of actors. Fisher invokesBourdieus practice theory, butHenri Lefebvres (1991) analysis of thespatialstrategiespeopledeployinthecourseofbiologicalreproduction,aswellastothereproductionofboththemeansandproductsofproduction,mayalsobeuseful. This rethinking also occurs through an appreciation of the waystheactionsofpeopleplaya role in reproducing thevery structures thatconstraintheiracts(seeGiddens1979,Certeau1984).Thisunderstandingof practice is not merely a model of social reproduction. By callingattention to theways inwhich social reproductiondependson the actsofindividuals,itprovidesabasisforunderstandingindividualactionthatgoesfarbeyondthepowertochoosefromasetofpreexistingalternatives.GiddensanddeCerteauare,ineffect,resurrectingandelaboratingFranzBoasprestructuralistattentiontoagency:Theactivitiesoftheindividualaredeterminedtoagreatextentbyhissocialenvironment,butinturnhisownactivitiesinfluencesthesocietyinwhichhelives,andmaybringaboutmodificationsinitsform(1940:285;seealsopp.591592).Thisformuladescribesareciprocalrelationshipbetweentheindividualandsocietyasa

32




fieldofpower.Inthiscontext,enculturationinvolvesnotonlytheprocessbywhichchildrenadaptthemselvestoandadoptthevalues,outlook,andbehavioralnormsofadults.Italsoinvolvestheprocessbywhichchildrencome tomaster the resources their societymakes available to them foractingcreatively.AsBoasowncareerasacitizen-scientistsuggests,hewasnotmerelyconcernedthatanthropologypayequalattentiontoindividualsas to social forms. Boas understood that fully socialized people reflectcritically on, and act creativelywithin, their society. I can think of nobetterstartingpointforathoroughlyanthropologicalpoliticalecology.

PHOTO CREDITS

DebraPicchi:Figures1,10.WilliamFisher:Figures2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,13.

NOTES

Acknowledgments:IamgratefulforthecommentsandsuggestionsofanumberofcolleaguesasIwasworkingonthisarticle:MichelAlexiades,ClaireCesareo,KirkDombrowski,AnnCorinneFreter-Abrams,Brad Jokisch,ChrisKyle,MatthewLauer,LdaLeitoMartins,DanielaPeluso,PaulRobbins,andAngelaTorresan.I also wish to acknowledge the helpful comments of two anonymous Tipitreferees.

1.TheuseofthewordIndianstorefertopeoplewhomostdefinitelyarenotfromIndiaisoneofthemostwell-knownmistakesintheWesternhemisphere,andforsomethismaybereasonenoughtoabandontheword.OnereasonIuseitispreciselybecauseitisamistakenotjusttheresultofamistake,butamistakeeverytimeitisused,becauseitistherebyanexampleofthearbitrarinessofthesignbeyondperfection.Idonotconsiderthispointcleverortrivial;followingEricWolf,Ibelievethatthestartingpointofgoodsocialscienceistotakeseriously,andresist,thethreattoturnnamesintothings(1982:3).IsaythatIndianisanexamplebeyondperfectionbecauseitisandatthesametimeisnotarbitrary,foritwasonlyataparticulartimeinhistorythatpeopleborninwhataretodaycalledtheAmericascouldhavebeengiventhenameIndians.Thewordthussignifiesthefracturedandmisguidedlogicoftheconqueror,whohasthepowertomakesuchmistakesandgetawaywiththem.Towardtheendofhismagnum opus,WolfarguesthatthewordIndianstandsfortheconqueredpopulationsoftheNewWorld,indisregardofanyculturalorphysicaldifferencesamongnativeAmericans(1982:380).Thus,thewordIndiansignifiesnotagroupofpeoplebutaparticularhistorical relationship involvingmanypeoples.There isa risk

33




thatwordslikeIndian,whichsignalasubordinatepositioninsociety,becomepejorative.Perhapsforthisreason,FisherwhennotreferringspecificallytotheXikrinusesthewordindigenous(althoughotherauthorscitedinthisarticle,likeTaussigandPicchi,useIndian.)AlthoughIusethiswordaswell,IdosowithcautionbecauseIdonotclaimthatmyargumentsnecessarilyapplytoallindigenouspeoples.Nevertheless,IusethewordIndianratherthanindigenousAmazonianbecauseIbelieveitistherelationshipbetweenIndiansanddominantelementsofsociety(whetherwhitesorthestate)thatistheproblem,andnottheword itself.OfcourseIagreewithMichaelHarnerspoint thatacademictaxonomic idealsmust take secondplacewhen they interferewith the rightfulaspirationsofoppressedpeoples (1984: xiii-xiv). Admittedly, a third reason Iusethewordisoutofhabit,developedbecausethepeoplewithwhomIwork,theShuar,useit(thatis,itsSpanishequivalent,Indio). 2. Although many people use postmodernism and poststructuralisminterchangeably,Iconsiderthemdistinct(and,asIarguebelow,thedistinctionisimportantforpoliticalecologists).BypoststructuralismImeananacademicmovement associated primarily with Michel Foucault (1970), Gilles Deleuze(DeleuzeandGuattari1983),JacquesDerrida(1974),andBrunoLatour(1993),who, although antagonistic aboutmany issues, are united in their rejection ofstructuralism and in their ambivalence towards the Enlightenment project(having rejected its faith in progress,whilemaintaining its critical spirit). BypostmodernismImeanamovementbasedinartandarchitecture,andinacademiaprimarilyassociatedwithJean-FranoisLyotard(1984),whichischaracterizedbya celebrationof theendof theEnlightenmentproject. Bothpoststructuralistsand postmodernists reject humanism, positivism, and the grand-narrativesthathavedominatedWesternthought,butfordifferentreasonsandindifferentways.Interestingly,bothfindsomeinspirationfromindigenousAmazoniansfor Derrida, the Nambikwara, for Latour, the Achuar, and for Lyotard, theCashinahua. 3. SeeOrlove1980,Kottak1999,andBiersack1999forvarioushistoriesof ecological anthropology. These histories argue that ecological approacheshave progressed through distinct stages, including neofunctionalist andneoevolutionist.AsChrisKylehasobserved(personalcommunication),theseaccountstypicallyservetojustifytheirauthorscurrentprojectratherthantoshedlighton thehistoricalprocesses thathave ledanthropologists to raisedifferentquestions indifferent terms. Iwould add that these accountsmayalso reflectthedistancebetweenthecontextinwhichearlierworkswereoriginallywritten,andthecontextinwhichtheywerelaterread.Isuspectthatagoodgenealogyofecologicalapproachesinanthropologywillrevealmoreaboutchangesintheway anthropologists talk about anthropology than about changes in the wayanthropologiststalkabouttheenvironmentorculture. 4. The notion of a human ecology seems to have been discussed firstby sociologist EdwardHayes and geographer J. PaulGood in the early yearsofthetwentiethcentury(Gross2004:583).Attemptstoengagesociologyandgeographycontinuedthroughthe1920s,ledbysociologistRobertE.Park(whoseappreciationofgeographyechoedthatofFranzBoas(e.g.,Boas1940:639647;see

34




Gross2004:593494),andHarlanBarrows(1923),who,inhis1922PresidentialAddresstotheAmericanAssociationofGeographers,elaboratedontheideaofhumanecologyasawayofunderstandinghowhumansrespond,adaptto,andshapetheirenvironment.Nevertheless,asgeographyandsociologydepartmentscompeted for resources, geographers resisted anything thatmight threaten theboundaries of their discipline (Gross 2004:595596). Consequently, humanecologywithingeographydidnotemergeuntilthe1960s.ItwasnotuntilJulianStewards pioneeringwork in the1930s that anthropologists began todevelopcultural ecology, their equivalent ofwhatPark andBarrow each referred to ashumanecology.Today,bothhumanecologyandculturalecologyareimportantapproachestoresearch,servingasframeworksforanalysisinbothgeographyandanthropology,despite the fact thatgeographers andanthropologists sometimesusethesetermsinstrikinglydifferentways. 5. Both Schmink andWood (1987) and Sheridan (1988) argue that ahybrid of cultural ecology and political economy is necessary for the study ofnaturalresourcecontrolinsuchhybridsituationsasthoseofpeoplewhostraddleboth subsistence and capitalist economies. For Schmink andWood, politicalecologyisnecessaryforthestudyofthefrontierbetweensubsistenceandcapitalistsocieties.ForSheridan,itisnecessaryforthestudyofpeasants,whorelylargelyonsubsistenceproductionbutexistwithinandarepartofcapitalistsocieties. 6. Although less frequently cited, other uses of political ecology thatpredateSchminkandWood(1987)andSheridan(1988)include:Boehm1978;Brumfiel1983;McCay1981,1984;Morgan1987;Salwasser1987;Simberloff1987;andVoget1963. Voget(1963:235)definespoliticalecologyintermsofinterrelationsamongpolities(i.e.,societies.SeealsoBoehm1978:266).Brumfiel(1983:266)definespoliticalecologyasaconcernforhowecologicalvariablespresentobstaclesandopportunities to individuals pursuing their political goals in various structuralcontexts. Salwasser (1987) and Simberloff (1987) understand it as researchthatcaninformpolicydebatesconcerningnaturalresourcemanagementandthepreservationofbioticdiversity.Thesethreedistinctdefinitionscontinuetomarktheparametersofmuchcurrentresearchidentifiedaspoliticalecology. When the Journal of Political Ecology was launched in 1994, the editorscharacterizedtheiremergentfieldasdedicatedtoanincreasedunderstandingoftheinteractionbetweenpoliticalandenvironmentalvariablesbroadlyconceived(Greenberg and Park 1994:8). Similarly, Schmink andWood define politicalecology as the study of the relationship between the natural environmentand socioeconomic behavior (1987:38). More specifically, they examine theclash between socioeconomic systems at different scales and their effect onthe environment, with an eye towards addressing environmental policy issues,especiallyintermsofclassconflict(ratherthanaMalthusiandynamic). 7. At the time of the Industrial Revolution, political economy meantthe study of the conditions that determine the wealth or poverty of polities.AnthropologicalpoliticaleconomyhasitsoriginsinresearchbyEricWolf(1956)andSidneyMintz (1956) that called attention to structural inequalities in therelationsofproduction(i.e.,class)andtheinternationalmarket(i.e.,dependency).

35




Atfirst,anthropologistsconcernedwiththerelationshipbetween localculturesandlargereconomicsystems(e.g.Wolf1955;Wike1958)usedpoliticaleconomytorefertoaspecificbranchorconcernofeconomics.Later,theyusedthephraseto signal their engagement with Andre Gunder Frank (1967) and ImmanuelWallerstein(1974),whoarguedthatcapitalismisaglobalphenomenon,thatitstructurestheworldintounequalparts,andthattheeconomicgrowthofonepartisunderwrittenbytheexploitationofanotherpart.Jorgensen(1971)wasoneofthefirstanthropologiststousepoliticaleconomy(albeitinpassing)torefertometropole-satelliterelations.In1978,aspecialissue5(3)ofAmerican Ethnologistwasdevotedtopoliticaleconomy,signalingitsestablishmentasaclearlydefinedareaofresearch.ThetermwasfirstpromotedbyWolf sstudentsJaneandPeterSchneider(1976). 8. SeeChapin2004,andShellenbergerandNordhaus2004forargumentsfromwithintheenvironmentalistmovementthatthesocioeconomic,orpolitical,andtheenvironmentshouldnotbetreatedasindependentvariables. 9. That conquest and colonialism has radically altered the Amazonianecosystem does not necessarily mean that the preconquest ecosystem wasunchanging.Unfortunately,thereisnoroominthisreviewforaconsiderationof the tremendous importanceofhistoricalecology to theprojectofpoliticalecology(seeCronon1984,1996;Denevan1992;andBale1994). 10. InthisFisherisperhapsasindebtedtoSahlins(1989)asheistoWolf(1982). 11.Thissenseofpassivitymaysteminpartfromaconflationofbiologicaland cultural evolution. In its original formulation, theDarwinianmodel wasunconcernedwiththemechanismsthatgeneratevariation,andwasunconcernedwiththeforcesthatshapethenaturalenvironment(tobestudiedbygeologistsandphysical geographers). Darwins radical pointwas to call attention to therelationship between variation within a species and its natural environment.FollowingthemodernsynthesisofDarwiniannaturalselectionwithMendeliangenetics,somehavepursuedthislackofconcernforindividualintentionalityandfor the forces that shape theenvironment toanextreme (e.g.,Dawkins1990).Recently, however, other evolutionary scientists have been exploring modelsthatrecognizeintentionalandactiveadaptationsonthepartofindividuals.Forexample,ChristopherBoehm(1978:266)paysattentiontorationalpreselection,meaningpurposivebehaviors,includingbothindividualandcollectivedecision-makingprocessesthatanticipatecomplexevolutionaryproblemsinmodelsofhumanevolution. 12. IusethistermdifferentlyfromPicchi,whoidentifiespostmodernismwiththeclaimthatallknowledgeisaproductofinterpretation,coloredbysuchfactors as personal experience, culture, and political interpretation (2000:18).Attention to subjectivity and interpretation are neither recent nor strictlypostmodern. Theyaremoreproperlytheconcernsofhermeneuticstheorists,mainly those influenced byWilhelm Dilthy, such as Gadamer (1986), thoseinfluencedbySigmundFreud,suchasVictorTurner(1967,1973;seeOring1993),andthoseinfluencedbyMaxWeber,suchasGeertz(1973).Postmodernismanditsacademiccousinpoststructuralismare,incontrast,characterizedbyaradical

36




critiqueofsubjectivity. 13. According toWallerstein, core and periphery exist in a reciprocalrelationship between two places (or polities). The former consists of placesor polities that produce high-wage, capital-intensive, andhigh profit goods toexchangeforlow-wage,noncapital-intensive,andlowprofitgoodsproducedbythelatter(1974:351).Manysocialscientistshaveusedotherwordstoexpressthisbinary,forexample,metropole/satellite(Frank1969);articulated/disarticulatedeconomies(deJanvry1981);productive/extractiveeconomies(Bunker1985);andexpandedproduction/simplereproductioneconomies(SchminkandWood1987). 14. See Demeritt 1994a, 1994b, 1998; Jarosz 1993; Nesbitt andWeiner2001;Robbins2001a,2001b;StottandSullivan2000;andWillems-Braun1997for poststructuralist political ecology case studies by geographers. In general,poststructuralist geographers are especially concerned with deconstructingnotionsofnature,whereaspoststructuralistanthropologistsaremoreconcernedwithdeconstructing specificethnic identitiesornotionsof cultureandculturaldifference. 15. ThisisnottoconflateDerridaandLatour.Theveryvaguenessofthetermpoststructuralism signals that theonly thing its practitionersnecessarilyhaveincommonistheirrejectionofstructuralism.WhereasDerridahasgenerallyrestrictedhimselftotheanalysisofdiscursivepractices,especiallywrittentexts,Latourhasarguedfortheclosestudyofnetworksthatlinkpeople,objects,andideas,andhaswrittenandencouragedgrounded,empiricalethnographicresearch(e.g.,LatourandWoolgar1986). 16. One of the best examples of an ethnographic engagementwith bothpolitical economy and poststructuralism is James Ferguson (1994). I believethat thisbook, togetherwithFishers,provideamodel for futureethnographicstudies. 17. AccordingtoMarx(1967:6566)itwasonlywhenlaboritselfbecameacommoditythatpeoplecouldseethatlaboristhesourceofallvalues(i.e.,thelabortheoryofvalue).Inasimilar,althoughperhapsinvertedmove,poststructuralistsarguethatonlynowcanweseethatknowledgeitself,andinallitsforms(includingknowledgeofthesubjectandtheknowingsubject),isaneffectofpower. 18. SeeFerguson(1994)andLittle(2001)forpartial,butexemplary,attemptstoaddresssuchquestions. 19. Foranexampleof codeddesire inAmazonia, seeGow1989. ForanexampleofdecodeddesireinAmazonia,seeRubenstein2004. 20. Murphy andMurphy (1985) anticipate such an approach, but, asidefromBrianFergusons(1995)reevaluationofYanomamicultureandhistory,theirexamplehasnotbeenwidelyfollowed. 21. SeeNadasdy(1999)forasimilaranalysis,aswellasforacalltoacknowledgeandanalyzethepoliticalfieldinwhichNativeAmericans,conservationecologists,andothersattempttointegratetraditionalandscientificecologicalknowledge.Hunnetal.dismissNadasdyasapostmodernistwhoadvocatesanextremerelativistpositionthatindigenousknowledgeisincommensurablewithscientificknowledge (2003:s7980). In fact,Nadasdys argument does not concern the

37




incommensurablenessofdifferentkindsofknowledge,but rather theway thatdebates over the incommensurablenessor integrationof different kinds ofknowledgemask apolitical conflict between state control and local, aboriginalcontrol, over the management of natural resources. As Cruikshank observes,Hunnet.al.exemplifythelimitationsofaculturalecologyentirelydivorcedfrompoliticalecology(2003:s96).SeeCruikshank2001foranothergoodexampleofapoliticalecologyapproachtotherelationshipbetweenlocalandscientificformsofknowledge,andAgrawal(1995)forasophisticatedepistemologicalcritiqueofthetraditionalversusscientificbinary. 22. Ifpracticetheoriesseemalsotoprivilegeindividualactors,thatisonlybecauseanthropologistsdevelopedsuchtheoriesinordertochallengeandescapethe structural determinism of Durkheimian sociology (brought into BritishanthropologybyRadcliffe-Brown;intoFrenchanthropologybyLvi-Strauss;andintoAmericananthropologybyTalcottParsons.AsOrtner[1984:146]observes,whenParsonswroteofactionhewasreferringtotheen-actmentofrulesandnorms).Practicetheorydoesnotrejecttheimportanceofsocialstructure;insteaditcallsatte

steps to a political ecology of amazoniarfw5w4

Documents

momento en que

fisher y otros

tierra y

propongo que

y una teora sofisticada

en este ensayo

uno que se centre en

los indgenas