idelber avelar - ameridian perspectivism and non-human rights

7/29/2019 Idelber Avelar - Ameridian Perspectivism and Non-Human Rights

1/21

http://alternativas.osu.edu 1,2013 ISSN2168-8451

No.1,2013

AMERINDIANPERSPECTIVISMANDNON-HUMANRIGHTS

IdelberAvelarTulaneUniversity

ThispaperstartsfromDipeshChakrabarty'sargumentthatinthenewlynamederaoftheAnthropocenewhenhumanbeingshavebecomesuchadestructiveforcetotheenvironmentthattheyhaveacquiredthestatusofgeologicalagents,capableofinterferingwiththemostbasicprocessesoftheEarth,thehistoryofculturecannolongerbeseparatedfromthehistoryofthespeciesandofnatureitself.IthendeveloptheinsightthattheAnthropocenerenewstherelevanceofBraziliananthropologistEduardoViveirosdeCastro'sAmeridianperspectivism,atheorybased onthewidespreadAmerindian postulate ofanoriginary stateofindifferentiation betweenhumansandanimals,andthat theoriginal conditioncommon tohumans and animals isnot animality, as inWestern thought, buthumanity itself. The abundance of Amerindian narratives in which animals,

plants,andspiritsseethemselvesashumansisanalyzedasanAnthropomorphicimpulse that paradoxically containsananti-anthropocentricpotential,as inaworldwhereeverythingishuman,beinghumanisnotthatspecial.Thecontrastbetween Amerindian anthropomorphism and Western anthropocentrism isfurther developed in the context of the recent Ecuadorian and Bolivianconstitutions,whichforthe first time conferonanimals,plants, and bodies ofwater the condition of juridical subjects endowed with rights. The conclusionpointstowardthenotionofnon-humanrightsasanecessaryandurgenttask intheeraoftheAnthropocene.

AnthropotechniqueandThanatopolitics

Theconceptofhumanrightshasalwaysbeenhauntedbyitsnecessaryyetimpossible

universality. On the one hand, human rights would mean nothing if the notion did not


2/21

2 idelberavelar


theoreticallyextendtothetotalityofhumanbeings,theentiretyofthehumancommunityon

Earth.Ontheotherhand,itsunmistakablyEuropeanoriginshavesystematicallycastashadow

onhowuniversallyapplicabletheyareorhavebeen,andwhatparticular,specificinterestsare

at stake when they are invoked or defended. The tension between universalism and

particularismhasbeenattheveryheartofthestrugglesaroundhumanrights,andmypurpose

hereisnot tosolvethattension.It is, rather,to recast itindialoguewitha setofreflections

developed inpastdecades byBraziliananthropologist EduardoViveirosdeCastro underthe

rubric of Amerindian perspectivism, aswell asmy observation of Bolivia's and Ecuador's

experiences inwriting constitutionsthat havesignificantly rethought the limits andscope of

human rights. This recasting will acquire its full meaning once I take into account Dipesh

Chakrabarty'srecentcallforarenewedunderstandingoftheblurringoftheborderbetweennature and culture in the lightof the unprecedentedenvironmental crisisbrought aboutby

globalwarming.Mypurposeherewill,then,betoaskwhathappenstohumanrightsoncewe

factorinrecentdevelopmentsinthecritiqueofanthropocentrism,aguidingthreadthatruns

throughtheAndeanconstitutions,Chakrabarty'sessay,andViveirosdeCastro'soeuvre.

Illustrious among contemporary interrogations of human rights is Italianphilosopher

GiorgioAgamben's referralof the notion back to its origins in the French Revolution. Inhis

HomoSacer:SovereignPowerandBareLife,AgambentakeshiscuefromHannahArendttoshowthatintheveryDclarationdes droits de l'hommeetdu citoyen thereisadisjunction

betweenthetwotermsthatdesignatethesubjectsofrights,asmanispresumablyinclusive

of citizen. There is something aporetic, then, about the conjunction and that connects

manandcitizen,asthesecond term issupposedly includedin the first.Agambenshows

howthepresumablynatural,biologicalrightsacquiredbyhumansintheveryactofbeingborn

(asstatedbyArticle1oftheDclaration:Leshommesnaissentetdemeurentlibresetgaux

en droits) are traversed by the paradoxical requirement that those rights be validated inreference toa non-natural, historical construction, namely the nation state. Article 3 of the

sameDclarationestablishesthathumanrightsshouldbereferredtoasovereignpower:Le

principe de toute Souverainet rside essentiellement dans la Nation, the same nation,

Agamben notes, that is etymologically related to naissance, birth. Biology and politics are,


3/21

idelberavelar 3


therefore,inextricablylinkedwithinhumanrights,andAgambentakesthatlinkasanindexto

thelimitsoftheconcept.

Agambenhypothesizeswithgoodreasonthatifmanisonlyasubjectofhumanrightsto

theextentthatheisalsoacitizen,thenthemassesdeprivedofcitizenshipareaninteresting

cuetoinvestigatethelimitsoftheconcept.ItisnotbychancethatstartingwithWorldWarI,

manyEuropeanstatesbegantopasslawsallowingthedenaturalizationanddenationalization

oftheirown citizens (16-7). France (1915), Belgium (1922), Italy (1926), and Austria (1933)

providesomeoftheprecursorstotheNurembergLawsof1935thatdividedGermancitizens

intocitizenswithfullrightsandcitizenswithoutpoliticalrights(17).Ashasbecomecanonical

in the past two decades, the concept of homo sacerthe bearer of that lifewhich can be

annihilatedwithoutsacrificeormourningemergesinthecontextofAgamben'sreflectionsonthedifficultyindistinguishingtheconditionofrefugefromtheconditionofstatelessness,that

is on the one hand the (presumably) temporary exclusion from the sovereign spacewhere

humanrightsarevalidatedand,ontheotherhand,theconditionofbeingcompletelydeprived

ofallpossiblereferencetoanysuchspace.InBeyondHumanRights,ashortpiecefrom1993

thatpreparesthelongermeditationpublishedtwoyearslaterasHomoSacer,Agambentakes

the 425 Palestinians expelledby the stateof Israel (24) asemblems of the no-man's-land

inhabitedbythehomosacer.Bybindingtheconditionpropertohumanitytothesovereigntyofanationstate,therefore,theconceptofhumanrightscanbebestunderstoodasonethatis

perenniallyhauntedbyitsoutside.ForAgamben,ratherthanemancipatingusfromsovereign

power, human rights have the effect of further inscribing uson the basis of our 'bare

life'withinthemechanismsofthebiopoliticalstate(LechteandNewman523).

ThetwosubjectsofrightsexplicitlymentionedintheDeclarationoftheRightsofMan

andtheCitizenare,therefore,maninsofarasheisbornandmaninsofarasheissubjectedto

thesovereigntyofanationstate.Thegender-specificpronounisdeliberatehere,anditaddstotheaporeticnatureofthecouplingofmanandcitizen.Whereasexplicitlyexcludedfrom

thelattercategoryatthetime,womenwerepresumablyincludedinthelatteralthoughthat

inclusion itself reinstated the aporia of a gender-specific pronounmade to stand for all of

humankind.1 For Agamben, the theoretical coupling of life as a biological fact and life as a


4/21

4 idelberavelar


politically qualified experience does not have the structure of a simple binary opposition.

AgambenarguedthattheGreeksdistinguishedbetween zoasunqualifiedlife(thelifethatis

sharedbyhumans,animals,gods)andbos,thequalifiedlifepropertohumans.Inthathewas

followingMichelFoucault,whodefinedthemodernageasthatmomentinwhichnaturallife

begantobeincludedinthecalculationsandmechanismsofstatepowerand,therefore,the

realmofpoliticsbecame properlybiopolitical. Beginning in1977,Foucault's seminars in the

CollgedeFrancefocusedonthepassagefromthe'territorialstate'tothe'populationstate'

andtheensuingvertiginousgrowthintheimportanceofbiologicallifeandthehealthofthe

nationasaproblemforsovereignpower(Agamben11).Agambengoesfurther,however,in

claimingthat zo,i.e.barelife,hasthesingularprivilegeofbeingthatuponwhoseexclusion

thecityofmenisfounded(15).Modernityrelies,accordingtoAgamben,onasimultaneouscapturingandexclusionoflife,tothepointwherepoliticsdoesnotknowanyvalueotherthan

lifeitself(17).

Buttherearereasonstobelievethattheseparationbetweenzoandboswasfarless

clear-cut in Greek thought than Agamben would have it. This is the starting point of the

argumentofferedbyArgentineanphilosopherFabinLudueainhisremarkable Lacomunidad

delosespectros.Tobetrue,inhisseminarTheBeastandtheSovereign JacquesDerridahad

noticed that the dichotomy between a general realm of unqualified life (zo) and the lifequalifiedwithhumanattributes(bos)wasunsustainableandinfactnowheretobefound,asa

stable dichotomy, in the Aristotelian text. Luduea further argues that isolating these two

dimensionswasnotpossiblebecausepoliticswasnotasupplementtolifenowdefinedas

bosaddedaposterioritoasubstratumconstitutedbyaprimary zo,asAgambensustained

(Luduea30).2Inotherwords,thereisnopoliticsthattranscendsthebiologicalfactoflifeitself

orremainsuncontaminatedbyit.Politicsisalwaysalreadythemanagingofzo.Accordingto

Derrida's and Luduea's rereadings, then, the very attempt to separate a properly humandimensionoflife(thatis,bos)fromthebruteanimalitythatgoesbynameofzowasitselfa

technique in the production of humanity, a device in the domestication of zo, a political

taming ofanimality. The primary substance ofpolitics, then, should not goby the name of

biopolitics,asinFoucaultorAgamben,butratherzoopolitics(Nodari2).


5/21

idelberavelar 5


Luduea calls anthropotechniques the set of devices, discursive practices, disciplines,

methods,andtechniquesthroughwhichhumancommunitiesoperateupontheiranimalnature

inordertochange,rewrite,expandtheirbiologicalsubstratumwithaviewtotheproductionof

whatwehavecalledman(15).Lacomunidaddelosespectrosisaremarkabletourdeforce

onhowTheologyandLawhaveprovidedtwopowerfulinstancesofsuchanthropotechnological

operation. In opposition to Agamben's argument, what is at stake in the production of

humanityforLudueaisnotsimplyanexclusionof zoos,oftheanimal.Politicshassetitself,

fromthebeginning,theartofdomesticationofthehumananimal(Luduea 21),inaprocess

wherepolitics is always coextensivewith eugenics. AccompanyingAncient zoopoliticsasthe

selective production of life, Luduea argues, therewas a thanatopolitics that regulated the

discarding of defective offspring that could harm the species' biological patrimony (57).Ludueapresents,then,abundantevidencethattherelationshipbetweenzoandbosisnot

oneofconstitutiveexclusion,asAgambenargued,butratheroneofconjunction,inwhichthe

veryadministrationofanimalitywasatechniqueintheproductionofman.

In a reviewof Luduea's Lacomunidad de los espectros, BrazilianessayistAlexandre

Nodarinotedthelinkbetweencensusandcensorship,insofarasthecountingofproperties

andpopulation,itsredistributionaccordingtogovernmentalcalculationsinclasses,theregistry

of births and deaths, etc. allowed for a better organization of the republic, facilitating thedetectionandcorrectionofunproductiveelements(thevagabonds)bythecensor(3).3Bothin

theAristotelianresponsetoPlatoniceugenicsandinChristianity,Ludueaidentifieddifferent

attemptsatproducingananthropotechniquethatdemandedthatlifebeseparatedawayfrom

itsintensity,force,andanimality,whichthenhadtobemeasured,confined,calculated,and

framed.Christianitywouldlaterthinkofimmortalityastheessentialattributethatseparates

the human from the animal. The Christian invention of man drew upon a methodical

eliminationoftheprimordialanimal,asforThomasAquinasnon-humananimalshadnoplaceintheKingdomofGod(Nodari4).SocraticGreeceandChristianitysharedanattempttopurge

animality out of man, to abolish the animalitas proper to man. One could argue for the

existenceofacontinuitybetweentheanthropotechniquesofChristianityandthoseofmodern

humanism. From Descartes to Heidegger, animals tend to appear in the philosophical text


6/21

6 idelberavelar


precisely when the essence of humanity is being defined. In Descartes's works, the

anthropotechnicaloperationtakesplaceintheequationofmindandsoulandthedefinitionof

animals as machine-like beings devoid of soul or consciousness. In La comunidad de los

espectros,Ludueaisrightfullyskepticalofsomeofthealternativestoanthropotechniquesthat

havebeenproposed,fromtheprojectofanaffirmativebiopoliticstotheillusoryattemptto

voidChristian patriarchalismbyreturning to its Pauline foundations, suchasexemplified by

AlainBadiouorSlavojiek.Ratherthanescapinganthropotechniquesbycarvingapaththat

presumablybypassesthem,mypurposeherewillbe,rather,toaskwhathappenstothemonce

we take into account a number of recent developments in law, anthropology, and cultural

studiesthathavequestionedouranthropocentricheritage.

OntheimpactoftheAnthropoceneuponCulturalStudies

4

The concept of a new period named Anthropocene, coined by ecologist Eugene

StoermerandlaterwidelyusedbyatmosphericchemistandNobelPrizewinnerPaulCrutzen,

designatesanewgeologicaleratowhichtheEarthiscurrentlytransitioning.Theadventofthe

previousera,theHolocenewhichreplacedthelasticeage,orthePleistocene,about10,000

yearsagocoincidedwiththeemergenceoftheinstitutionsthatwehavecometoassociate

withcivilization,suchastheemergenceofcities,agriculture,writing,andreligionsasweknowthem.ThewarmerHoloceneistheperiodinwhichwesupposedlyareatthemoment,butthe

possibilityofanthropogenicclimatechangehasraisedthequestionofitstermination,suchas

explainedbyIndianhistorianDipeshChakrabartyinanessayentitledTheClimateofHistory:

FourTheses:

Nowthathumansthankstoournumbers,theburningof fossilfuel,andother

relatedactivitieshavebecomeageologicalagentontheplanet,somescientistshaveproposedthatwerecognizethebeginningofanewgeologicalera,onein

whichhumansactasamaindeterminantoftheenvironmentoftheplanet.The

nametheyhavecoinedforthisnewgeologicalageisAnthropocene.(208-9)


7/21

idelberavelar 7


This essaybyChakrabarty, one of the greatmeditationsofour time, suggests that a

distinction towhichwehad grownaccustomed,namelygeological time versus humantime,

maywell beapproaching a definitive crisis. The temporalityof the Earthasamuch longer,

extendedprocessencompassingahumantimethatpalesandshrinksincomparisonnowneeds

to be understood in the context of a set of human activities that have the power to do

significant,permanentdamagetotheplanet.Ifweoncethoughtthatgeologicalfactswereso

grandthatnothingthathumanscoulddowouldchangethem,wemustnowwrestlewiththe

factthatdeforestation,desertification,theburningoffossilfuel,theacidificationoftheoceans,

andseveralotherhuman-leddestructiveactivitieshavechangedthemostbasicprocessesof

the Earth. Inotherwords, anthropological time has caught upwith geological time inways

hithertounthought. ThemainconclusiondrawnbyChakrabartyfromtheadventoftheAnthropoceneisthat

itisnolongerpossibletowritethehistoriesofglobalization,capital,andculturewithouttaking

intoaccount,atthesametime,thehistoryofthespecies.Therearesomanyofuscuttingdown

somanytreesandburningsomanyfossilsthatthehistoryofourculturecannolongerbe

separatedfromthehistoryofnatureasitoncewas.WhereasduringtheHoloceneonecould

argue for a somewhatclear-cut separationbetweennature and culture,a reasonably stable

distinctionbetweenthetemporalityoftheplanetandthetemporalityofhumanhistory,wehavenowbecomegeologicalagentstosuchadegreethattheverydichotomybetweenecology

andculturemustbecalledintoquestion.Whereasforcenturiesscientiststhoughtthatearth

processesweresolargeandpowerfulthatnothingwecoulddocouldchange them[...] that

human chronologies were insignificant compared with the vastness of geological time

(Oreskesqtd.inChakrabarty206),ourtimeischaracterizedbyanunprecedentedconvergence

betweenecologyandculture,wherebyitisnolongerpossibletoseparatehumanhistoryand

naturalhistory.AsChakrabartystates,itisonlyrecentlythathumanshavebecomegeologicalagentstotheextentthatthedynamicofhumanhistoryhasbeguntoimpactnaturalhistory.

Wemust,therefore,putglobalhistoriesofcapitalinconversationwiththespecieshistoryof

humans(212).

Theseparationbetweenhumanhistoryandnaturalhistoryhadbeenarelativelystable


8/21

8 idelberavelar


oneatleast sinceHobbesandVico.Giventheir trajectory inrecentdecades,thehumanities

findthemselvesinaparticularbindwhenthatdichotomycollapses.Ifwecouldsingleoutthe

majorfeaturethattraversestheminthe20thcentury,itwouldbetheculturalizationthathas

accompaniedtheso-calledlinguisticturnofthehumanisticdisciplinesandthesocialsciences.

Theculturalistcritiqueofnaturalizationhasbeenoneoftheirdistinctivefeaturesoverthepast

century, if not the structuring, defining one. The unveiling as cultural of traits assumed or

mistakenasnatural has been the breadand butter of our fields for many decades. In that

operation,natureoccupiesthepositionofarecedinghorizon,a limitthatkeepsbeingpushed

backtowardarealmthatisneverreallypresent,neverembodyingapositiveexistence.Inthat

model,wedonotreallyknowwhatnatureis,onlywhatitisnotandwhatthemistakenother

hastakenittobe.Throughoutthe20

th

centurynaturehasbeenaconstantpresenceinthehumanities,butonlynegatively,astheobjectofanoperationofdenaturalization.Therenewed

inseparability of natural history and human history experienced today challenges the

humanities tounderstandnature inwaysotherthansimply through the lensofaculturalist

critique of naturalization. It is no longer enough to unveil the cultural ground of concepts,

notions,andhabitshithertotakentobenatural.Intheurgencyoftheecologicalcrisiswelive

todaywecannolongeraffordnottofacethequestionofanatureaspositivity.

Thechallengeis,then,tothinknatureaspositivity,thatis,toaccountforphysisinourthoughtprocessesandinterventionsintocultureinwaysthatarenotsimplyreducibletothe

well-knownoperationsofdenaturalization.Myhypothesishereisthatsuchthinkingwouldlead

us to a significantly different understanding of human rights, in tune with innovative

experiences brought about by constitutions such as Ecuador's and Bolivia's (promulgated

respectivelyin2008and2009),whichhaveexpandedthenotionofsubjectofrightsbeyondthe

human species. This is a paradox only on the surface, of course: it is precisely in the

Anthropocene,theperiodmarkedbyhumancentralityinclimatechange,thatwemustremovetheanthropos fromitspositionasexclusivesubjectandtargetofourjuridical framework. In

order to accomplish that task anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro's Amerindian

perspectivismhasprovenanally.


9/21


10/21

10 idelberavelar


differentiatesthemistheirbodies,notthepresenceofasoul,theattributeofrationalityorthe

possibilityofimmortality.Awholeanthropocentricedifice,sharedbyseveralbrandsofidealism

andmaterialismalike(Marxismincluded),haddifferentiatedanimalsfromhumansbyascribing

to the latter some attribute lacking in the former. Instead, Amerindianworldviews see the

attributes proper to humanity as aposition that can be occupied by other species as well.

Viveiros de Castro argues that this conception can be found within Amerindian societies

throughouttheAmericas,fromAlaskatoTierradelFuego,anditturnsouroppositionbetween

natureandcultureupsidedowninmanyinterestingways,aswewillsee.

The importance of positionality in Viveiros de Castro's oeuvre harks back to his

ethnographicwork,particularlytheinterpretationofcannibalismamongtheArawet,apeople

of Tupi-Guarani language in theWestern Amazon.Whereas one of the founding fathers ofBraziliansociology,FlorestanFernandes,hadinterpretedTupinambcannibalismassacrifice,

ViveirosdeCastroquestionedtheideathattherewasasupernaturalentityimpliedintheact,

to whom something was presumably being offered, and attempted instead to answer the

question what exactly does one eat in the enemy being cannibalized? by describing the

syntax of the act, rather than the substance ofwhatwas eaten. Testimoniesendowing the

bodies being eaten with some attribute were fairly rare and inconclusive, and Viveiros de

Castroarguedinsteadthatwhatwaseatenwastherelationofenemieswiththeirdevourersor,putdifferently,itsconditionasanenemy.Whatwasassimilatedfromthevictimswerethe

signsoftheiralterity,andwhatwassoughtwasthisalterityasapointofviewupontheself

(Metafsicas).Whatyoucannibalizeisaperspective,aposition,apointofview,notanessence

ora substance. This postulate implied not only a reinterpretation of cannibalismbut also a

rethinking of the premises of the discipline itself, as it was no longer a matter of doing

anthropology to describe life such as it was lived from the indigenous point of view, as

traditionallyenvisionedbyEuropeananthropology.Instead,itwasamatterofdescribingtheassumptionofaposition,thatoftheenemy,inatransmutationofperspectivesinwhichthe

selfisdeterminedasotherbytheactofincorporationofthisother(Metafsicas).Itnolonger

madesensetospeakofadichotomybetweenWesternandAmerindianworldviews,butrather

afundamentaldifferencebetweenthewaysinwhicheachsideperceivedthedichotomyitself.


11/21

idelberavelar 11


Whereastheformerapprehendeditaccordingtoalogicofcontradiction(thingsareeitherAor

B),thelatterconceivedtheentiredichotomyasalineofflight,anessentiallytransformational

understandingoftheworld.

ApiecebyViveirosdeCastroentitledMyrtleandMarble:On theInconstancyof the

Savage Soulwill helpunravel thesequestions. Themetaphor in the title is taken from the

famous Sermon of the Holy Ghost (1657), by Portuguese Father Antonio Vieira, where he

contrastedmarble statues,which take time andwork tobebuilt, but neednoadjustments

later, tomyrtle statues, far easier tobuildbut inconstantneed tobetrimmed later. Vieira

comparestheindigenouspopulationsmetbythePortugueseinBraziltomyrtlestatues,asthey

receive everything taught to them with great sweetness and easiness, without arguing,

replicating,doubtingorresisting;buttheyaremyrtlestatueswhich,asthegardenerraiseshishand and scissors, soon lose their new figure and revert back to the natural and previous

brutality,tobeingjunglelikebefore(Vieiraqtd.inViveirosAInconstncia184).Evangelization

thus takes the form of a mnemonicmachine, an antidote against the supposedly amnesic

natureofthe Amerindians.NativeAmericans,ofcourse,wereonly amnesicwhen looked at

from the standpoint of a colonialist conception based on an identitarian, Aristotelian logic

according to which one either is or is not. If Amerindians appeared to have learned and

assimilatedalesson,itwasreasonabletoassumethattheywouldactaccordinglythefollowingday.Butthatdidnothappen.

Portuguesechroniclesinthe16thand17thcenturiesarefilledwiththeperplexitycaused

by the Tupinamb's response to evangelization: they did not seem to oppose Portuguese

religiousbeliefswithastructuredsetofbeliefsoftheirown.Theydidnotreactbyinsistingona

contradictoryaccountoftheworld,analternativecosmogonytocompetewiththeChristian

one. They appearedmalleable, accepting, and mimetic of the Portuguese values only, in a

secondmoment,tolookliketheyhadforgotteneverythingandmovedontosomethingelse.Inother words, what stunned the Portuguese was not the fact that there was a completely

differentsetofbeliefsinplay.Itwasnotthepresenceofacosmogonycontradictorywiththe

Christianone.Itwas,rather,thattheTupinambseemedtooperateoutsidetheAristotelian

logicofidentityandnon-contradictionaltogether.AsViveirosnotes,forAmerindiansitwasnot


12/21

12 idelberavelar


amatterofimposingtheiridentityupontheotherorrefuseitinthenameofone'sownethnic

excellence,butrathertransformingone'sidentitybyactualizingarelationshipwiththeother.

Theinconstancyofthesavagesoul,initsmomentofopening,istheexpressionofamodeof

beingwhereexchange,notidentity,isthefundamentalvaluetobeaffirmed(AInconstncia

206).Much like Pierre Clastres invited us to think the paradox of a non-coercive power, a

positionofauthoritybasedondeprivation, 5itisthepuzzlingimagesofareligionwithoutaset

ofclosedbeliefsandaculturalordernotpredicatedupontheexclusionofothersthatmustbe

grasped here. The Portuguese facedasanenemynot another dogma, but indifferenceand

inconstancyvis--visdogmaassuch.Theabsenceofaproperlyevangelical,dogmaticstance

toward belief is linked with anessentially transformational conception of the world, where

humanityandanimalityareunderstoodintermsverydifferentfromourown. ViveirosdeCastronotesthat if thereisavirtuallyuniversalnotionwithinAmerindian

thought,itisthatofanoriginarystateofindifferentiationbetweenhumansandanimals.But

theoriginalconditioncommontohumansandanimalsisnotanimality,buthumanity (Os

Pronomes119;myemphasis),asAmerindianmythsoftentellthestoryofhowanimalslook

the way they do because they have lost attributes proper to humans. Whereas we have

traditionally assumed that we are, in a way, former animals (as the narratives of Western

anthropocentrisminvariablytellthestoryofapassagefromananimalitythatwesharewithnon-humananimalstothespecificityofthehumanessencethatonlywepossess),Amerindian

thoughtinvitesustothinkofanimalsasformerhumans.InalectureentitledDeathasAlmost

anEvent,ViveirosdeCastrorelatessomeoftheseveralAmerindianmythsthattellthestoryof

howjaguarsakeyanimalhere,asthepredatorparexcellenceintheAmazonianbiomeshed

theirskinsandrevealthemselvesaspersonswhentheyareawayfromhumans.Itisimportant

nottoreducethisdynamictoourwell-knownoppositionbetweenappearanceandessence.It

isnotthatthebodyisunderstoodasmereclothinghidingthetrueessence,buttheopposite:clothingitself istakenas abody.Rememberthat inAmerindiansocieties animalmasksare

endowedwiththepowerofmetaphysicallytransformingtheidentityoftheirbearers(Viveiros

OsPronomes133).Clothingandmasksareunderstoodlessascloaksthathideanessence

thanasassemblagescapableofmobilizinganotherbody.Humanityremainswithinanimalsasa


13/21

idelberavelar 13


forcevisibleonlytotheeyesofthatspeciesitselfortothetrans-specificfigureoftheShaman.

Amerindianontologiesoftenresorttoclothingasacomponentofmetamorphosesthathave

alwaysbeenpartofahighlytransformationalworld(Rivireqtd.inViveirosOsPronomes

117).The result is, then, that althoughwesee ourselves aspersons, thatperceptiondiffers

fromthewayotherspeciesperceiveusandthemselves.Jaguarstooseethemselvesaspersons.

Intheireyes,wearenothingbutprey,wildpigs.

Viveiros locates in Amazonian ethnography countless references to an Amerindian

theory according towhich theway humans see animals (as well asother subjectivities that

populate the universe: gods, spirits, the dead,meteorological phenomena, sometimes even

objectsandartifacts)isprofoundlydifferentfromthewaythesebeingsseehumansandsee

themselves.Typically, humans see themselves ashumans, animals asanimals, and spirits (ifthey see them) as spirits; but predator animals and spirits, according to Amerindian

cosmologies,seehumansasanimals(asprey).Ontheotherhand,preysseehumansasspirits

or animal predators, while predator animals and spirits see themselves as humans. They

apprehendthemselves(orbecome)anthropomorphizedandexperiencetheirownhabitsunder

thesignofculture,notnature.Theyseetheirfoodashumanfood(jaguarsseebloodascauim,

forexample)andtheircorporealattributes(beaks,claws,etc.)asculturalinstruments.Their

socialsystemisorganizedmuchlikehumaninstitutions,withshamans,chiefs,feasts,rites,etc.Whenthejaguarseesyou,heistheonewhoisaperson.Heistheoneendowedwithattributes

of personhood. You are a prey. In other words, whereas the Western debate between

relativismandobjectivismaddressestheprimacyofasubjectpositionvis--vistheobject(or

theotherwayaround),inAmerindianperspectivismwehaveawholesystemaltogether,where

thesubjectpositionitselfisvariableandcanbeoccupiedbyhumans,animals,plants,theEarth,

andsoforth.

Afewmoreconclusionsshouldbedrawnfromthepostulatesofaprimordialstateofindifferentiationbetweenhumansandanimals,andanoriginalconditioncommontohumans

and animalswhich is not, asweusually think in theWest,animality, but rather, humanity.

Whereas we see nature as a common ground from which different cultures took off and

differentiated among themselves (the narratives of our humanization being, by and large,


14/21

14 idelberavelar


storiesofamoveaway fromacondition ofnature),Amerindianmythstell the storyof how

animals lost the attributes inherited or maintained by humans. Animals can be, then, for

Amerindianthought,formerhumans.Forus,naturally,thingsarepreciselytheopposite:we

are, in a way, former animals who have acquired, or been endowed with, attributes of

humanity,betheyimmortality,awarenessof temporality,rationalityor theabilitytoproduce

andreproduceourownmeansofexistence.TheSpaniardsneverdoubtedthattheIndianshad

bodies(animalsalsohadthem);theIndiansneverdoubtedthattheSpaniardshadsouls(also

animalsandspectersofthedeadhadthem)(ViveirosAInconstncia431).Inotherwords,in

Amerindian cosmogonies, there is no primacy of human consciousness as such, insofar as

consciousnessorsoularethoughtofasattributesofpersonhoodwithwhichmembersof

anyspeciesmayhappentobeendowed,dependingpurelyonwhatlocusofenunciationandperspectivetheyoccupy.Personhoodisaphenomenologicalunitythatispurelypronominalin

kindapplied toa real radical diversity (Viveiros PerspectivalAnthropology6). There isno

humanessenceinsofarashumanitybecomesapurelypositionalconcept.

ViveirosdeCastro'sconceptofequivocationmayhelpusunderstandhowirreducibleto

simple relativismAmerindian perspectivism really is. TheBrazilian anthropologist elaborates

theconceptfromtheinsightthatLvi-Strauss'anecdoteisnotsimplyaboutperspectivism

butis,rather,itselfperspectivist,instantiatingthesameframeworkorstructuremanifestinthe innumerable Amerindian myths thematizing interspecific perspectivism (Viveiros

PerspectivalAnthropology9).Oneexample,recallsViveiros,isthemyththatrelateshowa

humanprotagonistgetslostintheforestandarrivesatavillagewhosedwellersinvitehimtoa

gourdofmaniocbeer,onlytoseehimhorrifiedwhentheyservehimagourdbrimmingwith

humanblood.The pointhere isnotonly thatmisunderstanding isacommon component of

howtheanthropologistperceivesthenative,ascountlessanthropologistshavepointedout.In

the Amerindian case, the reality that the anthropologist attempts to describe is itselfstructured and constituted through a multiple ensemble of misunderstandings and

conceptualizationsof them,a factwhichascribes tothe notion ameaningentirelydifferent

fromwhatAristotelian logicusually does.AsViveirosdeCastro notes, equivocation isnot a

simpleerror,illusionormisreadingintheusualsense.Incontrasttothese,equivocationisa


15/21

idelberavelar 15


properlytranscendentalcategoryofanthropology,aconstitutivedimensionofthedisciplines

project of cultural translation. It expresses a de jure structure, a figure immanent to

anthropology. It is not merely a negative facticity, but a condition of possibility of

anthropological discourse (Perspectival Anthropology 10). Whereas errors or deceptions

presupposeafailurewithinagivenlanguagegame,equivocationiswhatunfoldsintheinterval

between different language games (Perspectival Anthropology 11). The Amerindian

perspectivismdescribedaboveis,then,itselfa theoryofequivocation,notsimplyacaseofit.

Mereconstructivism,thatis, thewell-knownargumentthatthereisnonaturalorpriorreality

andtherealisitselfconstructedbydiscourse,isclearlynotenoughtoaccountforwhattakes

place here. There is a world of difference between a world where the primordial is

experiencedasnakedtranscendence,pureantianthropicalterity(thatistosay,theworldofempiricist naturalism that constructivism dismantles) and, on the other hand, a world of

immanent humanity, where the primordial takes on human form (which does not make it

necessarilytranquilizing),forthere,whereeverythingishuman,thehumanissomethingelse

entirely (Perspectival Anthropology 16). In other words, one cannot denaturalize the

primordialgroundbybringingintothepicturethevolitionandintentionalityofdiscourseina

worldwherethe fundamentalattributes of theprimordial groundare,precisely,human-like

volitionandintentionality. Howcan,then,aworldwhere,inaway,everythingishumanserveusasanantidote

toanthropocentrism?Is thatnotacontradictioninterms?ViveirosdeCastro'sanalysisofthe

pronominalstructureunderlyingtheAmerindianexperiencecanbe instructivehere.Whereas

thefirstpersonpronounIistheproperinstanceendowedwithasouloraspirit,andthethird

person he/she is the impersonal domain of nature, the second person you covers

supernature inthe formoftheOtheras asubject (ViveirosOsPronomes 135). Viveiros

hererelatesanarchetypicalencounteroftennarratedinAmerindiansocieties:aman,alwaysaloneintheforest,seesabeingwhich,initiallythoughttobeananimal,turnsouttobeaspirit

oradeadpersonwhothenspeakstothatman.ThatinterpellationtoevoketheAlthusserian

scenewithwhichthisonehassomeparallelsmay result deadly tothe protagonist,who is

objectifiedbytheotherentity,turnsovertotheotherside,andceasestobehuman,becoming


16/21


17/21

idelberavelar 17


alsonatureitself(Pachamama,intheAndes;Gaia,inJamesLovelock'sformulation)toacquire

thestatusofasubjectendowedwithrights.BoththeEcuadorianConstitutionof2008andthe

BolivianConstitution of 2009 are imbued withwisdom learned fromAmerindian peoples in

order to grant rivers, animals, and other non-human components of nature the status of

subjectsendowedwithrights.Article255oftheBolivianConstitutionestablishestheprinciples

ofharmonywithnature,defenseofbiodiversityandtheprohibitionofprivateappropriation

foruseandexclusiveexploitationofplants,animals,microorganisms,andanylivingmatter

(59).Goingbeyondthemeregrantingofthoserightstonon-humansubjects,otherscholars

havearguedthatitisnotenoughtomakeofnatureajuridicalsubjectifwedonotquestion

howmuchofithasenteredintoourownconceptofproperty(Figueroa16-7).Thatis,thevery

understandingofthenaturalworldasanobjectinarelationofownershipinwhichhumansarealwayssubjectsmustberethoughtas,inFigueroa'sfelicitousformulation,thereistoomuch

natureinthenotionofproperty(16).

Whenitcomestothisrenewedimbricationbetweenculturalandecologicalquestions,

LatinAmericaisnotaterrainamongothers.Inacontextofunprecedenteddevastationtothe

environment,theAmazon,astheworld'sgreatestreservoirofbiologicaldiversity,concentrates

someofthemostdecisivepoliticalandecologicalconflictsofourtime.ThisisvisibleinBolivia's

intra-indigenousstruggleregardingthehighwaytobebuiltacrosstheTipnispark,inviolationofindigenous land; in the Peruvian nationalist government's embrace of a developmentalist

agenda,withsevere damage to itsAmazonian ecosystem; or inthe (presumablycenter-left)

Brazilian administration's inheritanceofthemilitarydictatorship'shydroelectric-basedmodel

of development for the region. In Brazil, particularly the construction of the Belo Monte

hydroelectricdamontheXinguRiverhasmeantanunprecedentedattackonindigenousrights,

withdamagestotheriverofnationaldiversitythatcouldproveirreparable.TheBeloMonte

controversywas also an opportunity for the country's first serious discussion, in courts, ofnature as a subject of rights, as the Public Prosecutor explicitly called anthropocentric

jurisprudenceoutdatedand,throughananalogywith the19thcenturyexpansionofjuridical

statustoslaves,arguedthatnature'srightswerebeingviolated.7

The unprecedented ecological crisis of which we are both agents and, along with


18/21

18 idelberavelar


animals,plants,andPachamamaasawhole,victims,isaclearcaseofwhatTimothyMorton

has called hyperobjects, i.e. those objects that defy our perception of time and space,

because they are distributed around the globe in such a way that we cannot directly

apprehendthem,astheyproduceeffectsthedurationofwhichfaroutlaststhescaleofhuman

lifeasweknowit (Danowski2).Theecologicalcrisisis,then,atthesame timeobviousand

invisible,urgentandlong-lasting,specificallycontemporaryandradicallyuntimely.Ascanbe

deducedfromalloftheabove,theveryurgencyofaconceptofnon-humanrightsisaproduct

of anthropocentric reason as well as a reminder of its limits and shortcomings. The final

paradoxmay verywell be that themost powerful critique ofanthropocentric reason today

comes fromAmerindiannarratives structured around the anthropomorphization of animals,

spirits,plants,andbodiesofwater.Whatremainstobeseeniswhetherornotitistoolatetolearnfromthemthatinaworldwhereeverythingishuman,beinghumanisnotthatspecial.

WorksCited

Agamben,Giorgio.HomoSacer:SovereignPowerandBareLife. Trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen.

Stanford:StanfordUP,1999.

Avelar, Idelber. Cinquenta leituras sobre o ecocdio de Belo Monte. Primeira Parte.

http://revistaforum.com.br/idelberavelar/2011/11/24/bibliografia-comentada-50-leituras-sobre-o-ecocidio-de-belo-monte-1%C2%AA-parte/

-----. Cinquenta leituras sobre o ecocdio de Belo Monte. Segunda Parte.

http://revistaforum.com.br/idelberavelar/2012/01/31/bibliografia-comentada-50-

leituras-sobre-o-ecocidio-de-belo-monte-2%C2%AA-parte/

Badiou, Alain. Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism. Trans. Ray Brassier. Stanford:

StanfordUP,2003.

Bevilaqua, CimaBarbato. Chimpanzs em Juzo: Pessoas, Coisas e Diferenas.HorizontesAntropolgicos17.35(2011):65-102.

Chakrabarty,Dipesh.TheClimateofHistory:FourTheses.CriticalInquiry35(2009):197-222.

Clastres,Pierre.SocietyAgainsttheState .Trans.RobertHurley.NewYork:ZoneBooks,

1987.


19/21

idelberavelar 19


Constitucin de la Repblica del Ecuador . 2008.

http://www.asambleanacional.gov.ec/documentos/constitucion_de_bolsillo.pdf

Constitucin del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. 2009.

http://www.justicia.gob.bo/index.php/normas/doc_download/35-nueva-constitucion-

politica-del-estado

Danowski, Dborah. O hiperrealismo das mudanas climticas e as vrias faces do

negacionismo.Sopro70(2012):2-11.

Dclaration des droits de lhomme et du citoyen de 1789. http://www.assemblee-

nationale.fr/histoire/dudh/1789.asp

Figueroa,Isabela.Povosindgenasversuspetrolferas:controleconstitucionalnaresistncia.

Sur,RevistaInternacionaldeDireitosHumanos3.4(2006):49-79.Foucault,Michel.TheBirthofBiopolitics:LecturesattheCollgedeFrance,1978-1979.Trans.

GrahamBucknell.NewYork:Palgrave,2008.

Lechte,JohnandSaulNewman.Agamben,ArendtandHumanRights:BearingWitnesstothe

Human.EuropeanJournalofSocialTheory15.4(2012):522-536.

Lvi-Strauss,Claude.Tristestropiques.Paris:Plon,1955.

-----.Raceethistoire.Paris:Gallimard,1987.

Luduea,Fabin.Lacomunidaddelosespectros.I.Antropotecnia .BuenosAires:MinoyD'vila,2010.

Morton,Timothy.TheEcologicalThought.Boston:HarvardUP,2010.

Nash, Roderick. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. Madison: U of

WisconsinP,1989.

Nodari, Alexandre. Censura: Ensaio sobre a 'servido imaginria.' Ph.D. Dissertation.

Florianpolis:FederalUniversityofSantaCatarina,2012.

-----. Fabricar o Humano: Resenha deLa comunidad de los espectros, de Fabin Luduea.Sopro50(2011):2-10.

Pateman,Carole.TheDisorderofWomen:Democracy,Feminism,andPoliticalTheory.Stanford:

StanfordUP,1989.

Rodrigues, Danielle Tetu. Direito & Os Animais, O - Uma Abordagem tica, Filosfica e


20/21

20 idelberavelar


Normativa.Curitiba:Juru,2008.

ViveirosdeCastro,Eduardo.Arawet:osdeusescanibais.RiodeJaneiro:JorgeZahar,1986.

-----.OsPronomesCosmolgicoseoPerspectivismoAmerndio.Man2.2(1996):115-144.

-----.PerspectivalAnthropologyandtheMethodofControlledEquivocation. Tipit2.1(2004):

3-22.

-----.Metafsicas canbales: Lneas de antropologa posestructural. Trans. StellaMastrangelo.

BuenosAiresandMadrid:Katz,2010.(Kindle,nopagination)

-----.AInconstnciadaAlmaSelvagemeOutrosEnsaiosdeAntropologia.2ndEdition.SoPaulo:

CosacNaify,2011.

-----. A Morte como Quase Acontecimento. Public Lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdz8U9_8YVUiek,Slavoj.ThePuppetandtheDwarf:ThePerverseCoreofChristianity.Cambridge,Mass.:

MITPress,2003.

Notes

1 InTheDisorderofWomen:Democracy,Feminism,andPoliticalTheory,CarolePatemanmakesthe

veryinterestingobservationthatoutofthethreemajortenetsoftheFrenchRevolutionequality,liberty,fraternity,thelatterwasalwaystheleaststudiedandinterrogated,afactnotunrelatedto

theaporiadescribedabove,wherebyanexplicitlygendered term ispresumablymadeto standforhumanityassuch.

2 Alltranslationsaremine.3 One of the great insights of Alexandre Nodari's dissertation, Censura: Ensaio sobre a 'servido

imaginria,'istheargumentthatourtimeshavelosttheunderstandingthatcensorshipalsoimpliesthecreationofaregimeofcontrolandmeasurementofthevisible(10),thatistosay,wehavecometomisstheetymologicallinkbetweencensorshipand census.MichelFoucault'sbiopolitics,ofcourse,offersaframeworktolinkcensusandpower,buttheconnectionswithcensorshippreciselybecause Foucault's model emphasizes so strongly the concept of power as production of thesayableremaintobeunraveled.Nodari'sdissertationisaremarkablecontributiontothisagenda.

4 ThefollowingsectionincludesandrewritespassagesfromanarticleofmineentitledContemporary

Intersections of Ecology and Culture: On Amerindian Perspectivism and theCritique ofAnthropocentrism, forthcoming in Revista de Estudios Hispnicos. Some passages have beenmodifiedandexpanded,othersappearinthesameformasinthepreviousarticle.

5 In SocietyAgainst theState, Clastres solves theseemingly paradoxicalquestionof a non-coerciveformofpowerbypointingtoAmerindiansocietieswherethechiefisrequiredtobegeneroustotheextremeanddeprivehimselfofmaterialgoods.Thesystemisbasedonthepostulatethatthechiefconveysnothingbuthisdependenceonthegroup(45).

6 TheintersectionbetweenLegalStudiesandEnvironmentalStudiesisavastfieldinwhichIcanclaim


21/21

idelberavelar 21

noexpertise.Tothosewhoare,likeme,approachingitrecently,thefirstchapterofRoderickNash'sclassicTheRightsofNature ,whichbeginswithJohnLocke,offersaveryusefulaccountoftheclashbetween theanthropocentrism of natural rights theory andaweaker yetpersistent notion thatleadsdirectlytotheconceptofexpandedcommunityonwhichenvironmentalethicsrests(19-20).Bevilaqua'sarticleChimpanzs emjuzo reviewstwo legal cases, one inBrazil and the otherinSierra Leone, in which chimpanzees were recognized as subjects of rights, thereby highlighting,according to Bevilaqua's astute conclusion, the need conceptually to manufacture anotherdifference[],astheattemptstodissolvethedifferencesbetweenhumansandnon-humansseemdoomedtofailure(99).

7 A vast bibliography documents the illegality and ecocidal impact of the Belo Monte dam. For acompilation of fifty items that spell out the history of this attack on the rights of nature andindigenouspeoplesoftheAmazon,seeAvelar.

idelber avelar - ameridian perspectivism and non-human rights

Documents