Beyond Speaking Truth to Power

7/31/2019 Beyond Speaking Truth to Power

1/41

MANCHESTERANTHROPOLOGY

WORKINGPAPERS

Social Anthropology

School of Social Sciences

University of Manchester

M13 9PL


2/41

2

BeyondSpeakingTruthtoPower:Anthropologicalentanglementswithmulticulturalandindigenousrights

politics1

JohnGledhill

TheUniversityofManchester

SocialAnthropology,

SchoolofSocialSciences

RoscoeBuilding

OxfordRoad

ManchesterM139PL

Email:[email protected]

Abstract

Professional anthropologists conspicuously disagree about the kind of

practicalengagementweshouldhavewithmulticulturalistand indigenous

rightspolitics.Disagreement isnotsimplyaboutwhetheracademicsshould

actas

advocates

for

the

specific

interests

of

their

research

subjects

but

about

thedesirability of this type ofpolitics in itself.Although the latter is often

presentedasamatterofacademic conscience,where, for example, strategic

essentialisms prove more politically effective than our preferred scholarly

accounts,otheractorsinevitablyseeitaspolitical.Thattheprofessionalwe

often excludes anthropologists not based in North America or Western

Europe further complicates the issues. I argue that retreat to the study to

composeanalysesthatspeaktruthtopowerisquiteineffectualinaworldin

whichforceswewishtodenouncehavethemselvesbecomeskilledplayersof

multiculturalistpolitics.

For

all

its

difficulties,

more

active

engagement

in

the

messyrealitiesofconcretesituationsistheonlywayforward.Thatentailsthe

rejectionofsomeoftheintellectualtrendsthathavedominatedthediscipline

inthepasttwodecadesandthekindofreevaluationofourprofessionalrole

that has todatebeen sidestepped in efforts to contain ethical andpolitical

controversy.

1 Paper presented to the workshop Pouvoir critique et critique du pouvoir des

anthropologues/Critical

power

and

critique

of

the

power

of

anthropologists,EighthConferenceofthe

EuropeanAssociationofSocialAnthropologists(EASA),Vienna,8thto12thSeptember,2004).

DraftVersion.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/41

3

Introduction

Ifwe reflect on the historical failures of the socialprojects of theLeft that

capturedthe imaginationofsomanyintellectuals inthecreativeartsaswell

astheacademyduringthetwentiethcentury,itseemsdifficulttodenythata

lack of pluralismwas one of the rocks onwhich such projects foundered.

EventheNicaraguanSandinistas,despitetheirconscientiouseffortstobeself

reflexiveabout theerrorsof thepast,did too little too late toaddress the

Miskituproblem,alongwithotherregionallybasedformsofdisaffectionthat

strengthened thehandof their imperialopponent and its local allies (Hale,

1994).This reflects theway theactually existing socialismsbelonged toa

broader stream ofmodernist thinking in which the Statewas the key not

simply to inducing economic modernization but the transformation of

consciousness and culture necessary to produce the newmen andwomen

requiredbyarevolutionizedsocialorder.Througheducationandtheexercise

ofmoral

and

intellectual

leadership,

the

agents

of

the

State

who

already

understoodthenecessaryshapeofthefuturewouldconstructthekindofmen

andwomenwhomightultimately,but not yet,become subjectsworthy of

exercisingpowerintheirownright.

Theproblemwiththismodelwas,ofcourse,thatitrestedonoveroptimistic

assumptionsabout

what

modernist

forms

of

power

and

sovereignty

could

actuallyachieveonthegroundwhenconfrontedwiththerecalcitrantmaterial

ofrealhumanbeingsembedded inparticularanddiverse regional formsof

lifethataboundedinspecifickindsofcontradictionsbetweenheterogeneous

actors. State agents could sometimes intervene in such local contradictions

quite productively from the point of view of strengthening the overall

hegemonyof

national

political

centres.

National

educational

institutions,


4/41

4

alongwiththeemergingmassmediathatcontributedsignificantlytonation

building projects, had far from negligible effects. Yet as has now been

comprehensively demonstrated by the Latin American literature that has

focusedon

decentering

the

regime

and

analyzing

processes

of

national

state

formation from below, even the comparatively successful hegemony

created inMexicoafter the1910Revolutionremaineda thingofshredsand

patches(JosephandNugent(eds.)1994,Rubin1996).

Over its seventyyearhistory, theMexicanpostrevolutionaryStateand the

rulingparty

that

incarnated

the

regime

infiltrated

deeply

into

the

social

life

of

most regions, yet it never eliminated countermovements. Some of these

countermovements might be described as antistate, but more were

concernedwiththewaytheStateshouldinterveneintheirlivesandthekind

of State that they deemed desirable. The State could often reachmutually

acceptable accommodations in particular cases,2 and such accommodations

hadasignificant

impact

on

how

State

power

was

actually

exercised

locally,

as

wellasinsomecasesreflectingsubstantialshiftsinideology,aswasthecase

when the longstanding policy of seeking to Mexicanize and assimilate

indigenous peoplebegan tobe rolledback in the 1970s. But its failure to

deliversubstantiallyonthesocialjusticepromisedbytheRevolutionimplied

thecontinualreemergenceofnontrivialformsdissidence,thatisdissidence

thatchallenged

the

way

resources

were

distributed,

the

way

power

was

allocated and governance effected, and the ideological premises around

whichtheStatehadsoughttobuildconsensus.

2 In the caseof some indigenous regions, suchas theTojolabal andLasCaadas zonesof

southernChiapas (LeyvaSolanoandAscencioFranco1996,vanderHaar2004), theState

exercisedvery little influenceoverhow localpeopleadapted its institutional forms to their

own purposes, and although there aremany other cases inwhich State impositionswere

more profound, therewas generally some scope for locals to adapt official organizational

formstotheirownpurposes,evenifthesewere,asinthecaseofthecommunityofSanJuan

ChamulaintheCentralHighlandsofChiapas,thepurposesofbossrulebyanoligarchy.


5/41

5

Anthropologists havemade a significant contribution to this rethinking of

statecentredanalysesand, indeed, to rethinkinghow theState itselfshould

beconceptualized,

as

atranslocal

institution

that

can

only

be

known

in

a

partialformthroughtheexperienceofinteractionwithspecificStateagentsin

particular settings in which multiple fields of power intersect, with those

related directly to the State apparatus only one element inwhat are often

morecomplexscenarios.TheState isalwaysunderconstruction frombelow

aswellasfromabove,aspeopleconstructimaginariesoftheactuallyexisting

formsof

power

and

of

desired

alternative

forms

of

governance,

their

actions

reflecting the balance between desire and conjunctural judgements about

practicalpossibilities(Gupta1995,Nuijten2004),abalancethatgenerallyhas

tobenegotiatedunderconditionsofdisagreement thatmay lead toconflict.

Explorationofthisbasicmessinessisattheheartoftheethnographicproject,

though itgenerallyneeds tobecomplementedbyanunderstandingofhow

localconflicts

may

be

exploited

tactically

and

strategically

by

non

local

actors.

Among the issues thatwe routinely need to consider iswhether apparent

ideological cleavages and the formal political banners under which

contendingforcesgroupareaclosereflectionoftherealsourcesandnatureof

divisions.Asking these kinds of questions effectively evidently demands a

minimaldegreeofcriticaldistancefromthecontendingparties.

Yet the fundamental shifts in the role of national states consequent on

globalization and the proliferation of neoliberal rule systems now present

anthropologists with some new dilemmas. Providing that we retain a

purchase on the messiness of ethnographic realities, we can be suitably

dismissiveofthemoreromanticizingtendenciesthatcharacterizedthesearch

of

Northern

intellectuals

for

new

bearers

of

projects

of

emancipation

to

replacetheworkingclassesinotherformsofsubalternidentities,alongwith


6/41

6

theexcessofresistance thatanalystsofpoststructuralistbent found in the

widestpossiblevarietyofsocialbehaviours(AbuLughod1990,Brown1996,

Ortner 1996). Indeed, one of the potential fruits of such scepticism about

simplisticdichotomies

between

resistance

and

domination

is

the

prospect

ofgainingabetterunderstandingofhowworkingpeopleintheirdiversity

think and act inways that do still express desires for social and political

transformation (Gutmann 2002). But our problem as adiscipline is our far

from residual position in the savage slot and general expertise on

otherness.AsMicaela di Leonardo (1998) has trenchantly demonstrated,

thishas

conditioned

the

way

the

anthropology

of

North

America

has

developed in the eraof liberalmulticulturalism in far fromdesirableways,

whiletheissueonwhichIwillfocushere,theriseofmulticulturalistprojects

andan indigenouspoliticsofrecognition in theotherAmericas,provokes

nolessseriousproblems.Theirrootsareclearlynotsimplyintellectual,since

multicultural policies create jobs for the experts emerging from

postgraduateprogrammes

that

are

now

producing

far

more

highly

qualified

peoplethantheacademycanabsorbintheSouthaswellastheNorth.Yetthis

situation has further intellectual as well as political consequences, to the

extent, forexample, that theproliferationofprofessionalized intermediaries

inboththeStateandNGOsectorscontributestothereinforcementofgroup

boundariesandvisionsofculturaldistinctivenesswithwhichatleastsome

academicanthropologists

feel

uncomfortable.

Thesearenot,however,problems thatareunique to thoseworkingoutside

universities, since academic anthropologistsmay alsowork as consultants,

andnow face strong challenges todo research that is useful to someone,

fromboth theState (in thenameofsociety)andmanyof thepeople that

they

seek

to

study.

Ethnography

is

perhaps

always

in

danger

of

cultivating

tunnelvision,given thepersonalsympathiesandcommitments that tend to


7/41

7

be forged in fieldwork,but thepowerofanthropologists todeterminewhat

research is done and how it is done is increasingly circumscribed inmore

politicizedcontexts.Thisishardlyabadthinginthelightofthemanyethical

issuesof

both

informed

consent

and

scientific

representation

that

were

not

resolved to the satisfaction of all partiesby theAmericanAnthropological

AssociationTaskForcesinvestigationoftheNealChagnonaffair,3althoughit

wouldbe disingenuous to suggest that any ethical code ofpractice or any

attemptbythesubjectsofresearchtoasserttheirownershipoftheresearch

process could completely eliminate opportunities formanipulation or even

duplicityon

the

part

of

aresearcher,

and

especially

aforeign

researcher

who

wouldprobablynothavetolivewiththelongertermconsequences.

Yet even if basic field research is carried out according to the ideals of

sharedorcollaborativeanthropology,wearestillfacedwithbroaderissues

aboutthesocialandpoliticalimplicationsofanykindofcommitmenttothe

interestsof

the

group

that

our

analysis

is

inevitably

constructing

for

a

widerpublicdomain.WhatIaimtoshowinthispaperisthattheseproblems

havebeenexacerbatedbythefactthatspecifictypesofpluralismhavenow

becomeintegraltotheredefinedstateprojectsoftheneoliberalera,andare,in

aclosely integratedway,alsofrequentlyintegraltothestrategiesofpolitical

and economic forces that have far from progressive social agendas. We

needto

ask

both

how

far

greater

pluralism

relates

to

both

conscious

tactics

offragmentationofpopularmovementsandalsohowfarfragmentation

isabottomupresponse tochangingsocioeconomicconditions thatneed to

remainatthecentreofouranalyses.Ifouraspirationistomakeacontribution

to transcending the fragmentation of the diverse social forces that share a

desire to improve those conditions, I suggest that we will find some

3Seehttp://www.aaanet.org/edtf/index.htmfortheFinalReportoftheTaskForce.
http://www.aaanet.org/edtf/index.htmhttp://www.aaanet.org/edtf/index.htm


8/41

8

approaches to theoryandpractice inour fieldmore relevant thanothers in

thisrespect.

Tomake

the

discussion

more

concrete,

Iam

going

to

draw

on

avariety

of

situationsofwhichIhavesomepersonalethnographicknowledgeinMexico

andBrazil.Butto introducetheindigenousrightsthemeandhighlightways

in which it seems problematic, I want tobegin with some recent debates

between other anthropologistsworking in and outside LatinAmerica, not

leastbecause the contributions of the former are often largely ignored in

debateswithin

the

Northern

academy.

Indigenousrights:Aninescapableessentialism?

The politics of Indigenous Rights have always provoked mixed reactions

amongst anthropologists.Many an indigenous land claim that has enjoyed

the support of aprofessional anthropologist as expertwitness in courthas

also had to face the countertestimony of another witness of the same

profession. Thesedifferenceshavesometimesbeenamatterofwhoispaying

thepiperbutperhapsmore frequently theyhavebeenamatterofpersonal

convictionorideology.

In todays debates for and against the role of the anthropologist as an

advocate for indigenous rights, it is all too easy to forget that in a country

suchasMexico,therathersignificantinstitutionalandpoliticalweightofthe

disciplinenationallyowesitsoriginstothefactthatMexicananthropologists

playedacentral,albeitnotentirelyunambiguous,role inpostrevolutionary

State projects designed to assimilate minorities into dominant national

(mestizo)culturesunderconstruction.Yet thatprojectwasabandonednotso

muchdue to thedefectionofanewgenerationofanthropologists from the

officialindigenistperspective(Warmanetal1970),butasaconsequenceof


9/41

9

the dogged refusal of many indigenous people to be assimilated, the

revolutions failure to deliver on its promises of material improvements,

and lastbutnot least,anunintendedconsequenceof theextensionofpublic

education,namely,

the

creation

of

anew

generation

of

bilingual

schoolteachers of indigenous origin who saw the celebration of their

difference and projects to conserve and rescue cultural traditions as a

wayofcompetingsuccessfully forhegemony in localpolitical fieldshitherto

dominatedbyrepresentativesofmestizominorities.

Inmaking

this

move,

they

were

aided

by

global

developments

that

changed

theconditionsunderwhichindigenousrightspoliticscouldbepracticedfrom

the 1980s onwards. Indigenous movements have learned to exploit the

additionofapostcolonialsensibilitytothehumanrightsdiscoursewithin

NorthernCountries,thealternativedevelopmentdiscoursethatprosperedin

the wake of the ecological and social disasters provokedby World Bank

megaprojects,

and

above

all,

the

explosion

of

transnational

NGO

activity.

As

DevelopmentalistStateprojectscollapsedinLatinAmerica,andtheiralready

limitedredistributiveandsocialwelfareachievementswererolledbackby

structural adjustment and the implantation of neoliberalism, playing the

identitycardincreasinglybecameoneofthefewremainingmeansavailable

tomakematerialdemandsontherestructuredState.

AfricanandAsiangovernmentshaverefusedtoratifyILOConvention169on

Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, which advocates selfdetermination for

indigenous minorities in decisions about development, along with land

restitution.Yet theConventionhasbeen ratifiedby an interesting range of

neoliberal states inLatinAmerica, including those ofGuatemala,Peru and

Mexico.

Although

indigenous

activists

have

been

disappointed

by

the

practicalresults todate, itremainssignificant thatacountrysuchasMexico


10/41

10

hasmodifieditsconstitutiontoredefinethenationasapluriculturalentity

giventhecountrysstrongpastcommitmenttoMexicanizingtheIndianby

eliminatingindigenousidentitiesandformsoflifeentirely.

Yetatthemomentwhenthingsseemtobelookingupforpeoplelookingfora

modicumofcompensation foranoftensavagehistoryofdiscriminationand

dispossession, anthropologists have become increasingly worried about

supportingthem.In2003wesawAdamKuperquestionthejusticeandgood

senseofprettywellanyconcessiontoalocalindigenouspeoplesmovement

inthe

pages

of

Current

Anthropology

(Kuper

2003:

395)

and

also,

without

the

criticalresponsesfromcolleagues,inamorepopularversionpublishedinthe

NewHumanist.ForKuper,indigenousclaimstolandinvolvethedeployment

of essentialist or racist criteria that mimic the most destructive European

nationalist ideologies based on ties of blood and territory. Indigenous

movements find support amongst ingenuous Northern dogooders by

exploitingromantic

images

of

the

primitive

that

modern

anthropology

must

repudiate.Worse than that,Kupercontends,almostcertainlywithSouthern

African experience in mind, though the problem is far from irrelevant to

regionsofLatinAmericawhereindigenouspeoplearecompetingforcontrol

of landwith relativelypoormestizos, successful indigenous land claims are

likely toproduce serious ethnic conflicts that it is thedutyofa responsible

analystto

highlight.

What

makes

Kupers

intervention

particularly

interesting

is itsstrongrejectionof theentirepoliticsof indigenousrightsandapparent

endorsementnotsimplyofauniversalistic,individualisticliberalframework

forrightspolitics,butalso,asAlcidaRamospointsout incriticisinghim,an

unusuallyunreconstructednotionofdevelopment(Ramos2003:397).

Yet

many

of

Kupers

worries

about

dominant

representations

of

indigenous

people arewidely shared evenby anthropologistswho are sympathetic to


11/41

11

theircause.Agoodexample is theMexicananthropologistGabrielaVargas,

writing in the American Anthropological Associations Anthropology News

(VargasCetina 2003).With a PhD fromMcGill and research experience in

Chiapas,Vargas

has

had

apractical

ethnographic

engagement

with

organized

indigenous groups of a kind that draws her to the conclusion that their

struggles should be supported. Yet she finds that the most politically

influential representations of indigenous people are misrepresentations or

falsehoods in Kupers sense, albeit practically effective strategic

essentialismsinSpivaks(1988)sense,thusleadinganthropologiststosome

difficultchoices

about

how

we

can

meet

our

professional

and

ethical

obligations, especially when we are asked to validate false models, or

perhapsmostconsequentially,tosupportonelocalfactionoveranother.

However,asLesFieldpointsoutinacommentaryonVargasspieceinalater

issueofAN(Field2003),thedebateabouttheroleofstrategicessentialismsin

bothacademic

circles

(and

the

indigenous

movement

itself

in

the

United

StatesandCanada) isnow twentyyearsold.We shouldnowperhapshave

reached the point of transcending an unreflective opposition between a

professionalcollectiveweandanequallyhomogenousandexternalthem

of indigenous movement activists and members. Firstly, Field points out,

indigenous intellectuals themselves now routinely deploy anthropological

toolsof

research

for

community

ends.

Secondly,

and

more

consequentially:

The socalled anthropological community invoked at the AAA and other

nationalandinternationalmeetingscouldbeseenasakindoffalseconsciousness

thatobscuresthedeepcleavagesamonganthropologistsconcerningpowerandits

deploymentsinindigenouscommunities.(Field2003:6)

In the lightof that, it seemsuseful to return toRamoss response toKuper.

Arguing that the kinds ofblanket generalizations thatKupermakes about


12/41

12

indigenousmovements are unsustainable as generalizations, she concludes

that whatwe need is serious anthropological research, rather than casual

generalizations, and openminded anthropologists who neither adopt

indigenouscauses

as

an

article

of

faith

nor

reject

ethnic

struggles

as

racist

manipulationsbyunscrupulousopportunists(Ramos2003:398).Itwouldbe

difficulttoaccuseRamosofharbouringessentialistandromanticideasabout

the primitive, given that herbitingly critical accounts of indigenism in

Brazil have highlighted the vast gap that exists between the real lives,

aspirations,behaviourandhistoriesofdisplacementandreconstitutionofthe

countryssurviving

indigenous

people,

on

the

one

hand,

and

their

symbolic

rolesinbothcolonialEuropeanandlatterdayNGOfantasiesofotherness,

not tomention thesignificanceofwhat isacomparatively tinyminority4 in

the construction of Brazilian national identity, on the other.5 Nor is it

particularly easy todepictwhat are often life anddeath strugglesbetween

IndiansandnonIndiansinBrazilastheproductofamisplacedpolicyofState

tutelaryprotection

within

amodernizing

project

(Lima

1995,

Diacon

2004)

converted into indigenous rights politics thanks to the interventions of

Northern dogooders. Not only do legacies of genocidal projects of

exploitation,prejudice and theofficial infantilizationof the Indianweigh

heavilyoncontemporarycircumstances,butethnicconflictsarefuelledby

Brazilsclassstructure.IftheviolenceperpetratedonIndiansbypoormestios

hassometimes

been

deliberately

orchestrated

by

the

military,

large

landowners and the owners of the capitalist extractive industries, it is also

fuelledbythebrutalrealismofthestruggletotranscendpovertyinahostile

4Brazils350,000Indiansconstitute1%ofthecontemporarynationalpopulation.Indigenous

people are also a minority, at just over 12%, in Mexico, but, with an absolute number

exceeding 13million, constitute the largest singlenational indigenouspopulation in Latin

America.5See,forexample,thecollectionofseminalessayspublishedinEnglishinRamos1998.


13/41

13

environment.Thesearesomeof the issuesanthropologicalresearchperhaps

needstoaddressinmoredepth,ifitistodeservetheadjectiveserious.

Atone

level,

this

could

be

seen

as

simply

arepeat

of

the

call

for

anthropologiststofocusonthemessinessofconcretelocalsituations(which

would include an eye for manipulation where that was relevant), but

indigenousrightspoliticshaveclearlyraisedfundamentalquestionsaboutthe

authority of anthropological knowledge.Thiswasmade starkly evidentby

thereceptionofDavidStollsattackonthefactualveracityoftheaccountthat

theGuatemalan

indigenous

activist

and

Nobel

laureate

Rigoberta

Mench

Tumgave toanthropologistElizabethBurgos (wifeofRgisDebray) inher

famous testimonioYome llamoRigobertaMenchy asme naci la conciencia

(Stoll1999,Arias(ed.)2001).

Solidarityandobjectivism:thelimitsofrepresentation

Writing in thenameofobjectivityagainstboth thepostmodernist turn in

anthropologyandthesupposednaivetyoftheCulturalStudiesmovementin

theUnitedStates,Stoll ineffectdisqualifiedasubalternvoiceat thesame

timeashepromotedareadingofthesupposedfactsofrecentGuatemalan

historythatjustifiedhisownbeliefinthefutilityofarmedinsurrection.This

gives his work at least an elective affinity with the prose of counter

insurgency but the precise political purpose underlying his work has

remainedunclear.Asagenuine liberal,Stollwished toavoidabsolving the

Guatemalan military from their widely documented responsibility for the

majorityoftheactsofviolencecommittedintheperiod,buthisintervention

wasbound toprovide theGuatemalanRightwithnewammunition in their

contemporarystruggleswithRigobertaMench,nowamajorinternationalas

well as national political figure. Furthermore, even if one concedes the

validityofatleastpartofStollsanalysisofthesituationintheIxilTriangleof


14/41

14

Guatemala, the fact thathe sought toextend it to theZapatista rebellion in

Chiapas offered poor support for his claim that objectivism shouldbe the

overridinggoalofanthropologicalresearch,sincehisinterpretationrevealeda

strikingfailure

to

avail

himself

of

the

by

then

plentiful

ethnographic

and

historicalliteratureonwhatwas,infact,averydifferentsituation.

CommentingonMenchstestimoniofromtheperspectiveofparticipationin

theLatinAmericanCulturalStudiesmovementthatisoneofStollsprinciple

targetsofcritique,JohnBeverleyhaspointedout thatMenchspurpose in

constructingher

story

for

Burgos

was

not

to

have

it

become

part

of

Western

Culture,which in any case she distrusts deeply, so that it canbecome an

objectforus,ameansofgettingthewholetruthtodalarealidadofher

people (Beverley 1999: 82). This is not a subaltern cultural practice

signifyingitssubalternitytousbutanartefactthatseekstobeanagentofa

transformativehistoricalprojectthataspirestobecomehegemonicinitsown

right.Mench

sought

to

advance

the

interests

of

those

she

represented,

and the way she did that was inevitably conditioned at the timeby her

militancyinaguerrillamovementseekingtoincorporateindigenouspeasants

intoabroaderclassbasedmovement.YetasBeverleygoeson toargue, the

fact that it should not be simply our desires and purposes as

anthropologistsor literarycritics thatcount in relation to testimoniodoes

notnecessarily

have

to

simply

redraw

the

simple

us

versus

them

kind

of

boundarythattroubledField,oratanyrate,offersuspossibilitiesforthinking

aboutdifferentplacesinwhichsuchboundariesmightbedrawn:

Butwe theweofourdesiresandpurposesabovearenotexactly in the

position of thedominant in thedominant/subalternbinary.Whilewe serve the

ruling class, we are not (necessarily) part of it. To leave things simply at the

celebrationof

difference

and

alterity,

therefore

is

to

leave

things

in

the

space

of

a


15/41

15

liberalmulticulturalism.Itistoreplacepoliticswithadeconstructiveethos.Partof

theappealofI,RigobertaMenchthatDavidStollobjectstoresidesinthefactthat

itboth symbolizes and enacts concretely a relation of active solidaritybetween

ourselves

as

members

of

the

professional

middle

class

and

practitioners

of

the

humansciencesandsubalternsocialsubjects(Beverley1999:83).

Yet takingBeverleys injunction torecognize the inevitabilityofpolitics, the

question remains withwhom shouldwe actively solidarize?where there

aredifferences of desires and purpose among subaltern social subjects

themselves?

This isaproblem thatMenchs text itselfposes forus. Itconstructsbotha

visionofdifferencereinforcedbyherfamousassertionthatnoone,not

even the anthropologists, can ever get to know all our secrets and a

visionofherown conversion toanunderstanding that classallianceacross

ethnicboundarieswasa condition for the survivalofMaya6 identityand

culturethat

does

not

shirk

from

giving

very

strong

insights

into

why

indigenouspeoplemighthate the ladinoother. Ifwe read itasapolitical

text,locatingitwithinthebroaderfieldofGuatemalanpoliticsinitsday,we

canobviouslyrelocateitintimeamongstaseriesofalternative,evolvingand

contested expressions of indigenous political projects. Some of these are

strongly essentialising and some are not, some are overtly critical of

professionalanthropological

projects,

domestic

and

foreign,

while

others

seek

toenlisttheparticipationofprofessionalacademicsforavarietyofpurposes,

rangingfromstudiesofthehistoryofculturalformstocampaignsoverland

tenureandaccess tosocialdevelopmentresources.Thekey issue is thus for

whomwe thinkweareproducingknowledge. Individed communitiesand

6MayaidentityisapoliticalconstructthathasbecomeincreasinglyimportantinGuatemala

sincetheviolencebutstilldoesnotnecessarilycorrespondclosely tolived identities(see,

forexample,Warren1998).ThesameargumentcanbemadeequallystronglyforChiapas.


16/41

16

conditions which pit subaltern against subaltern, solidarity seems tobe a

purelypoliticalchoice.Arethereanyprinciplesthatcouldguideusinmaking

orrefusingsuchchoicesotherthanpersonalinclination?

I think the answer is yes, and my answer will ultimately appeal to a

possibilityofrigorousor,ifyouwill,scientificanalysisinanthropologythat

mightseemindangerofresonatingwiththepostureofDavidStoll,thoughI

hope tomake it clear thatmyargument isquitedifferentlygrounded from

his. Letmebegin, however,by focusing onmore immediate questions of

politicalengagement

in

ethnographic

contexts.

Facinguptouncomfortableconversationsasanethicopoliticalimperative

The firstpoint tobemade is that solidarizingwithpeople,by recognizing

their desires, aspirations and sensibilities as worthy of respect, does not

necessarilyentailacceptingtheirpointofviewasbeyonddebate.Kuperisnot

wrong, for example, in claiming that identitypolitics sometimes incorporate

racist assumptions that reflect the internalization of ideas imported by

dominantgroups.

Ideas ofbiologically determined naturesbrought into the regionby criollo

elites intent on whitening it, ifnecessaryby genocide,have left a strong

legacy within the Nahua community7 I recently studied in a relatively

forgottenbackwaterofMichoacn state inMexico.Notonlydo indigenous

peopleusethetermracetodistinguishthemselvesfromthedescendentsof

thenottremendouslyaffluentmestizoswhobeganto invadetheircommunal

7Communityherereferstoanofficiallyrecognizedagrarianunitandalocalconceptionof

unqualified sovereignty over a given territory sanctified by both historical rights of

possessionand the sharingofacommon setof religious traditions thatdelineateaunique

group:thecommunityisthereforemadeupofmultiplesettlementsandthetermisbotha

juridical and an emic one (in the latter sense resonatingwith theNahua notion of an

altepetl).


17/41

17

territoriesattheendofthe19thcentury,extinguishingseveralofthecolonial

indigenouscommunitiesentirelyanddisplacing theirpopulations, theyalso

express equally historically rooted antagonisms between their own

communitiesthrough

the

notion

that

they

were

formed

by

people

of

different

origins and races, i.e. in completely essentialized terms. It is a relatively

straightforwardmattertoshowthat,eveniftheideaofracialdifferencewere

acceptable, an hypothesis of separate collective origins is nonsensical

historically, given that postcolonial processes totally reorganized pre

Hispanicsettlementpatternsandmixed togethergroupsofpeoplespeaking

diverselanguages.

It

is

also

possible

to

produce

evidence

that

attitudes

to

nonindigenousneighboursweredifferentbeforethelaternineteenthcentury.

Thesearematters inwhich it ispossible tohaveadialogueandonwhich it

seemspoliticallynecessarytotrytoforceadialogueforanumberofreasons.

Inthiscase,wearedealingwithcommunitiesthathavearemarkablehistory

ofdefending

their

autonomy

and

control

of

resources,

and

which

remain

combative. Yet if, as Roseberry (1994: 361) argued, what hegemony

constructsisnotasharedideologybutacommonmaterialandmeaningful

framework for living through, talking about, and acting on social orders

characterizedbydomination, the internalizationof frameworksofmeaning

derived from the ideasofdominantgroups is itspotentiallydisempowering

andfragmenting

side.

Since

the

Nahuas

are

aminority

within

aminority

in

termsof thepoliticsof indigenous rights inMichoacn,whereonly3.5%of

thetotalpopulationnowprofessesanindigenousidentity,divisionsthatlimit

their collective solidarity are particularly unwelcome. Secondly, however

historically understandable it may be, the indigenous communities

antagonismtomestizoneighbours,whonowsharecommonproblemsofstark

poverty

due

to

environmental

degradation

and

neoliberal

economics

that

leave them few alternatives to international migration, is a tremendous


18/41

18

resource for the regional elites that dominateboth populations and have

provedhistoricallyadeptatmanipulatingtheirmutualdistrust.

Asthe

Zapatistas

in

Chiapas

have

shown,

it

is

quite

possible

to

imagine

a

nonexclusionary, bridgebuilding politics that asserts indigenous identity

and autonomy claims whilst at the same time challenging the boundary

between Indian and mestizo whose construction was at least in part a

consciousstrategyonthepartofelitesinthefirstplace.Thisisnotamatterof

returningtothetraditionalclaimthatclassissuesshouldoverridethepolitics

ofidentity,

though

it

is

in

asense

areassertion

of

the

significance

of

class.

It

is

aquestionofchallengingformsofidentitybasedpoliticsthatarecompatible

withleavingthevesselemptyasfarasanyseriousassaultonchronicpoverty

is concerned. There have, furthermore,been a series of recent incidents in

otherpartsofMexicoof indigenous communitiesmobilizingunderarms to

resolve longstandinggrievancesbyevictingmestizobeneficiariesofagrarian

reformfrom

their

lands:

whilst

the

boot

has

more

unusually

been

on

the

other

foot, in at least some of these cases, it is difficult to see the indigenous

communitiesasthevictimsofinjustice.

Theideaofacademicresearchbecomingpartofaconversationordialogue

between outsiders and insiders is, of course, liberal, rationalistic and not a

littlenave.

Firstly,

there

may

be

quite

practical

problems.

Where

indigenous

communitiesjealouslyguard their autonomy indecisionmaking, theymay

simplynotallowethnographersaccesstocommunalassemblieswhereissues

are debated and decisions reached.8 This principally affects what the

8IhavealwaysbeenratherluckywithregardtothekindofaccessthatIhavebeengranted

myself,thoughbeingpermittedtowitnessfactionalconflictsandhearpeopledebatingvery

delicate issues and speakingwithoutnecessarily remembering that anoutsider is listening

posesethicalproblemstowhichselfcensorshipissometimestheonlyacceptablesolution.


19/41

19

ethnographercanknowandunderstand,sinceevenifadmittedtoobservethe

workings of such a forum, it would not generallybe appropriate for an

outsidertoparticipate(beyond,perhaps,providingsomepotentiallyuseful

information,as

distinct

from

adirect

opinion,

if

asked

to

do

so).

Yet

the

assemblyis,generally,theforuminwhichthecommunityrealisesitselfasa

broad and inclusivebody adopting positions and reaching a consensus. In

practice, opinions may be forged through backstage processes in which

representatives of different factions strive to garner the support of

individuals,andpublicprocessesof consensusbuildingmay themselvesbe

subjectto

adegree

of

manipulation.

In

the

words

of

historian

Florencia

Mallon (1995), outcomes reflect the process of constructing communal

hegemony. Thus, as a nonparticipant observer, the mute anthropologist

cannotconductanykindofdialogueinwhatremainsthemosttransparent,

inclusive,publicspaceofdebate,butofnecessitymustresorttootherkindsof

conversations, with leaders and/or ordinary members of the community.

Althoughthere

are

various

tactics

that

one

can

adopt

to

make

such

conversationsrelativelyopenandpublic,thereisaconstantdangerthatthey

willbeseenasbelonging to thebackstage formsofhegemonybuilding that

frequently invoke suspicion and censure, especially where the issues are

alreadyentangledininternalpoliticalconflicts.

Secondly,there

is

the

problem

raised

by

Stolls

intervention.

Dialogue

implies

listeningandrespecting thepointofviewofones interlocutor,allowing for

thepossibilityofirreconcilabledifferences.Sinceanthropologistsoftenfailto

understand thingscorrectlyorat thevery least,onlysucceed ingaininga

partialunderstanding,whichmustbe takenas thenorm,given thatmostof

us would probably accept that our fields move on and that there is a

cumulative

collective

gain

in

both

empirical

and

theoretical

work

we

need

to take thedialogic characterofdialogue seriously.We alsoneed to accept


20/41

20

thatourinterestscannotbeexactlythesameasthoseinhabitingalifeworld

thatmaybe connected to andpenetratedbyoursbutnevertheless remains

verydifferent.Contrarytothestereotypesthatfrequentlyguidethethinking

ofthe

leaderships

of

popular

movements

dedicated

to

consciousness

raising and transformation, I see little ethnographic evidence that people

livinginconditionsofextremeabjectionareincapableoftakingalongerterm

and broader view of the world, even if a handtomouth existence does

promote a tendency towards pragmatism and acceptance of shortterm

fixes. But since no amount of empathy at an intellectual level can

replicatethe

lived

experiences

of

discrimination,

humiliation

and

suffering

thatsomanyofthepeoplewestudyhaveexperienced(inwhatareoftenfar

more complicated lives than our own), rationalist or instrumentalist

argumentswillnotalwayswintheday.Theheartwillalwayshaveitsreasons

that reason cannot know, to paraphrase Pascal, and those reasons are

generallyrootedinhistory.

Butanthropologistsshouldhavesomeassetstocontribute intalkingtotheir

subjectsaboutpoliticalchoicesandstrategies.Firstly,wehavetheprivilegeof

distanceandtheluxuryofobservationinacomparativeframe.Weshouldnot

only, inprinciple,beabletounderstandthemicropoliticsof localsituations

but alsobe able to see how they fit into a larger picture. Thoughwe are

unlikelyto

be

completely

impartial,

honest

brokers,

we

should

at

least

be

able tounderstand thementalitiesandmotivationsofcontendingparties,at

leastinmostsituations.9Talkingtotheactorsabouttheseissuesmay,infact,

9ThisismybasicobjectiontothepositionadoptedbyScheperHughes(1995)inhercallfora

militantanthropology,despitemyprofoundadmirationforhercurrentcampaigningwork

onorgantraffickingandforboththepassionandtheinsightsofDeathWithoutWeeping.Not

onlyarefewsituationsreadilyreducibletotheblackandwhitetermsthatenableustomake

a simple determination of which group should become the focus of our unqualified

commitment,butweneedtodoourutmosttounderstandthepointsofviewofalltheactors


21/41

21

bequiteusefulforthem,inthesensethatanoutsiderdedicatinghim/herself

tocanvassingabroadrangeofopiniononadailybasismaybeabletoshed

lightonwhycertain tactics failed thatwouldnotsoreadilybeproducedby

thosewho

advocated

them

in

the

first

place,

even

if

they

practice

agood

deal

ofselfreflection.Secondly,andperhapsmoreimportantly,actorsoperatingin

aparticular localitymaynothaveadetailedknowledgeofrelatedsituations

elsewhere.DespiteabriefvisitbyZapatistaactivists,Chiapasmightaswell

havebeenlocatedonadifferentplanetasfarastheNahuasoftheMichoacn

coast were concerned, and even their more intensive interaction with the

Purhpechaindigenous

communities

in

the

states

central

highlands,

the

fulcrumof the indigenousmovement in their state,hadnotequipped them

with a very deep understanding of what was a fundamentally distinct

agrarian and political situation or of the varied political colours of the

organizations that the compaeros purhpechas had built up over recent

decades(ZrateHernndez1994).

The knowledge broker role of anthropologists can be of substantive

practicalvalue,asFox(2000)hasobservedintransmittingasuggestionbyan

indigenous leader in Oaxaca state that his organization might be able to

negotiatemoreeffectivelywiththeWorldBankifitactuallyknewthedetails

of its changing policies and procedures, so frequently misrepresented by

involved in complex scenarios, including those we may find repugnant, be they

paramilitarieskillinghumanrightsworkersandindigenousrightsactivistsortheelitesthat

we might hold responsible both for economic misery and intellectual authorship of

repression.Whatethnographicand/orhistoricalresearchusually showsus is thatelitesare

farfromhomogeneousorevenparticularlysmart(animportantissueforunderstandingwhy

popular movements sometimes advance), whilst paramilitary groups are often not too

different in their social composition from their victims, forcing us to askmore searching

questions about the circumstances that account for the emergence of such groups and the

motivations of thosewhojoin them (whichmaybe quitedistinct from themotivationsof

thosewhogain from theiractionsatasafedistance).Evenasingle typeofmovementor

organizationcan,ofcourse,embodyavarietyofambiguousandcontradictoryqualities,as

StarnhasshowninhisanalysisofthePeruvianrondascampesinas,forexample(Starn1999).


22/41

22

agents of the official intermediary, theMexican government. Butmymain

pointhereisthatanthropologicalknowledge,orperhapsbetter,toreducethe

stampofauthorityofthe term,anthropologicalanalysis,can itselfbeuseful,

providingwe

are

willing

to

run

the

risk

of

disclosing

our

thoughts

and

disseminating them in locallyaccessible forms,acknowledging that theyare

relevanttodebatesaboutpoliticalstrategy.

Yettheimplicationofthisargumentisthatitisnot,inthelastanalysis,simply

ourlocalknowledge thatcounts, in twosenses.Firstly,what localpeople

cannotso

readily

obtain

for

themselves

is

abigger

picture.

This

may

seem

an

oddthingtosayinanerawhen,inthecaseofMexicoandCentralAmericaat

least, many people from tiny rural places habitually cross international

borders to live in the worlds most advanced urban spaces, and global

electronic media have enhanced the imaginations of us all. But what

undocumented migrants navigating public spaces apprehensive about

surveillancein

between

long

hours

of

work

actually

experience

of

aradically

distinctformofliferemainslimitedinfundamentalways,andthesamemust

besaidoftheinformationimpartedbyelectronicmedia,howevercatalyticit

mayproveinreshapingpopulardesiresandunderstandingsofglobalpower

relations. Anthropology does have something distinct to offer if we are

willingtorethinkourmissionintermsofthewaysomeonelikeJohnBeverley

understandssolidarity.

Yet

this

raises

the

second

and

more

fundamental

issue.

Beyondtheethnographiccontext,beyondrepresentation

Ibeganthispaperbyacceptingthepotentialvirtuesofamorepluralworld,

but have, I hope, consistently turned away from the proposition that

anthropologys mission should be purely representational, and purely

representational for a Northern us, a position which lends itself to the


23/41

23

celebrationofapolyphony (ifnot cacophony)ofvoicesandahorrorof the

grand social projects embodied in capitalist, populist and socialist

developmental states and the ideologies which underwrote their social

engineeringendeavours.

Thus

far

Ihave

tended

to

present

the

political

articulationofanthropologistsat the leveloftheethnographic interfacewith

our subjects, but anthropology should not be reduced to ethnography,

especiallywhen it tries toenter thepolitical field. Ifweare tomakeserious

pronouncements about indigenous andmulticulturalist politicswe need to

ground those pronouncements in some kind ofbroader understanding of

historicalpossibility,

of

the

kind

that

Eric

Wolf

(1999,

2001)

advocated

in

his

discussion of structural power. A concept that sought to integrate the

classical concernsofMarxismwith someof the insightsofpoststructuralist

theory, notably Foucaults account of governmentality, structural power

offers a framework for discussing (and explaining) why some historical

outcomesbecomemorepossible thanothers (without trappingus ina rigid

determinism).

Wolf also argued that efforts to develop and deploy concepts that lend

themselves to comparativeanalysisandexplanatorygoalswhatwemight

describeasascientificprocedure in thehumanitiesremainsapreferable

optionforanthropologytosettlingforinterpretationandexperiencenear

writingthat

is

simply

representational

(Wolf

2001:

386).

In

relation

to

the

presentdiscussion,Iwouldarguethatthekindofpositionthatweadopton

indigenous rights issues, for example, shouldbe guidedby at least some

engagement with the question of what indigenous autonomy could be

expected to achieve for its beneficiaries under contemporary global

conditions.Asking thatkind ofquestion takesus straight into the territory

that

Wolf

charted

out

in

insisting

on

the

need

for

the

kind

of

bigger

picture

providedbytheconceptofstructuralpower.


24/41

24

Letusassume for thesakeofargument (asactually seems tobe thecase in

LatinAmerica, thanks inpart to the recent support of theWorldBank for

communaltitling

exercises

under

certain

circumstances

despite

its

overall

efforts topromote individualized landed property systems globally) that it

becomeseasierratherthanharderfor indigenousgroupstoestablishcontrol

over territories, administer them inways of their own choosing, run local

politicalandjusticesystemsaccordingtotheirownusesandcustomsand

reproducetheirculturalpracticesandlanguages.Althoughtherearecertainly

contextswhere

such

aproject

would

be

opposed

by

either

capitalist

interests

and/ornonindigenousgroupslivinginterspersedwithindigenouspeople,in

theabsenceofsuchconditions,thecontemporaryneoliberalState islikelyto

seesuchadevelopmentprincipallyasanopportunitytopromoteculturaland

ecotourism, turning an opportunity to demonstrate its willingness to

acknowledge global postcolonial sensibilities and offer redress for an un

pluralisticpast

into

alivelihood

project

that

will

be

consistent

with

the

neoliberal prescription that the poor be helped to help themselves by

marketingsomethinginthiscasetheirpatrimony.

One problem is, of course, that some people have more marketable

patrimoniesthanothers.Suchschemes forruralredevelopmentnowtendto

beseen

as

alternatives

to

supporting

small

farmers

working

in

agrossly

inequitableglobalagrofoodsystem,andonlyaminorityofthemarelikelyto

providesufficientlivelihoodstostemtemporaryorpermanentoutmigration.

Indeed, the fact thatextensivemigrationhasalreadyoccurredraises further

issues.

It

is

more

likely

today

than

fifty

years

ago

that

indigenous

people

who

leave

ruralareasforthecitieswillretaintheirindigenousidentities,andwhilstthey


25/41

25

are likely tobe socially transformed in variousways thatmay complicate

continuinginteractionswiththeirhomeland,itisevenpossiblethattheywill

try toparticipate in indigenouspoliticalmovements (as evidencedby some

smalltraders

in

Mexico

City,

for

example).

But

what

does

indigenous

autonomyseenastherecreationordefenceofaruralterritorymeanforthese

urbanpeople,forpeoplewhohavefoundworkinsweatshops,offshoretextile

andassemblyplants(asisoftenthecaseinGuatemala),orindistantzonesof

capitalistagriculture?Whatdoesitmeanforpeopleworkinginconstruction,

asjobbingplumbersordomestic servants inCalifornia?Whatdoes itmean

forremaining

rural

residents

who

have

become

increasingly

dependent

on

migrantremissions?

I suggest that it means an anchor for identity that is empowering under

contemporary conditions,but may notbe directly relevant to solving the

problems posed by the place of many of the putative members of the

communityin

national

and

transnational

class

structures.

The

leaders

of

indigenousmovementshavealsobecomeurbanbasedtoalargeextent,since

theyworkwithinNGOnetworksandneeddirectaccess to thepartsof the

stateapparatusrelevanttotheirgoals.Thereis,attheveryleast,adangerof

theirbecomingincreasinglyoutoftouchandsetintothekindsofagendas

that produce funding and official approval. At least one anthropologist,

CharlesHale,

is

currently

working

with

indigenous

leaderships

in

Guatemala

to facilitatedebate around the implications of global economic changes for

movement strategies and the pitfalls of their becoming increasingly

disarticulatedfromtheirsocialbases.Yetweshouldalsonotetheparadox

that an indigenousMexicanwhose ancestorsmigrated to a city afterbeing

dispossessedoftheircommunallandthrougha(possibly illegal,andeven if

legal,

fundamentally

unfair)

manipulation

of

the

pre

revolutionary

liberal

reform laws has no hope of securing restitution under the conditions that


26/41

26

govern the contemporarypolitics of recognition. In so far as contemporary

policiesarenotaddressingthebroadersocialandeconomicconsequencesof

the neoliberal decade, they are maintaining ambiguous feelings about

Indiansas

people

who

deserve

sympathy

and

respect

at

one

level,

but

are

notsimplydifferentbutmayevenbeovercompensated for theirunhappy

pastbyaStatethatignorestheneedsofthemajorityofitscitizens.

Thequestionofthekindofeconomicprojectthatcanbetiedtothepoliticsof

indigenous autonomy is thus far from trivial. Despite the loss of a

considerableamount

of

support

and

the

division

of

even

some

of

the

communitiesintherebellionsheartlandintoproandantiZapatistafactions,

tenyearsaftertherebellionoftheZapatistaArmyofNationalLiberation,the

movement isstillbuilding itsautonomyproject inChiapas.Yet itsability to

dosoreflects theunusual levelofexternaleconomicsupport themovement

receivesfromabroad,and itscapacitytoactasgatekeepertotheremaining

NGOsthat

operate

in

the

zones

under

EZLN

control.

This

is

such

an

exceptionalcasethatitcanhardlyserveasageneralmodel,anditisdifficult

to argue that even theZapatistashave solved theproblemsofproviding

risingstandardsoflivingfortheiradherentsinthelongterm.

WhattheZapatistastriedbutfailedtodowastobuildarainbowcoalition

ofsocial

movements

at

home

and

abroad

that

could

challenge

the

entire

neoliberal economicmodel and transform the State throughpopular action

frombelowwithoutbidding tocaptureStatepowerassuch.Although their

ideologicalinfluenceonthewiderindigenousmovementandcontributionto

theantiglobalizationmovementhasbeenimmense,theirconcreteprojectfor

peopleremainslockedupintheirsmallpartofthelargerregionalspacethat

forms

the

object

of

transnational

capitals

Plan

Puebla

Panama

(Villafuerte

2001).IftheZapatistapoliticalprojectmakesanysenseatalltenyearsdown


27/41

27

the line,10 it needs to renew its initial concernwith how to create a viable

alternativeeconomicorderthatisalsosomethingthatotherscanseebothasa

politically feasible goal and as relevant to their own, often very different,

socialcircumstances,

aspirations

and

desires.

Toaverygreatextent, thatalternativeeconomicordermustbeappropriate

foralargelyurbanizedsocietyincountriessuchasMexicoandBrazil,evenif

abroader vision could and should embracediscussion ofpossibleways of

transformingurbanrural relations and restructuring life and livelihoods in

ruralplaces.

In

practice,

adichotomous

view

of

the

urban

and

rural

is

no

longeranalyticallyappropriate tounderstanding the livelihoodstrategiesof

people who retain at least a foothold in rural places,but the urbanrural

divideremainsmaterialenough inothersenses,bothculturally (often inthe

form of negative attitudes towards thosewho remain country folk) and

practically (in terms of access to services, education, and the knowledge

basedeconomy).

TheexceptionallyacuteproblemsoftheBrazilianmegacity,afunctionofa

development model that reinforced an already strong concentration of

population in a small number of large coastal cities by undermining the

economicbases of smaller urban places even in the backlands relatively

closeto

the

coastal

areas

in

the

old

colonial

heartlands

of

the

North

East,

have

favoured thegrowthofamovementexplicitlyorientated toagrarianreform

10SomeMexicananthropologistswhooncedisplayedarelativelyuncriticalattachmenttothe

EZLNnow seem tohavegone to theopposite extremeofberating themovementatevery

turn.Although this isanunderstandable reaction ifweassume that theiroriginalposition

reflectedthehopethattheEZLNrebellionwouldserveasthevehiclefortheemancipationof

allofus,thisseemstometobeanundulynegativepositiontotakeonamovementthathas

beengenuinelyinnovativeinitspoliticalstyleandapproachtoculturalpolitics,establishinga

legacy thatwillcontinuetomakean importantcontributionbuildingnewkindsofpopular

politicalculturesandmovementsinthefuture.


28/41

28

andasocial reevaluationofsmall farmers, theSemTerramovement (MST).

AlthoughthereareinnumerablecontradictionsintheMSTproject,notleastin

termsof itsdependenceonresourceschannelledthroughtheStatetoensure

theviability

of

its

new

agrarian

colonies

(which

could

be

seen

as

areplica

of

earlierstatesponsoredruralcolonizationandmodernizationprojectsinsome

ways),it isaprojectthathasattractedsomepeopletoabandonthecitiesfor

thecountrysideagain.Giventhesocialheterogeneityofitsbase,andthevery

natureofaprojectthatseekstocreateanewkindofsocialorderbasedona

radicalrevisionofdominant ideasaboutruralwaysof life, theMST isquite

distinctfrom

identity

based

movements,

though

it

arguably

embodies

a

culturalprojectof itsown inabroader sense. Indeed, this isoneof those

cultural projects that might be seen as an alternative to the kind of

citizenship projects embodied in State hegemonic strategies, though it is

clearlyoneinwhichareformedandrevitalizedStateisanecessaryelement.

Furthermore,theMSTiswillingtodealwiththeStateasitis,asdistinctfrom

theZapatista

approach

to

autonomy

as

refusal

of

all

dealings

in

the

medium termwith a corrupt and corrupting Statemachine, a posture not

replicatedbymany of the other regional indigenousmovements inMexico

that subscribe to the Zapatista position as defined by the San Andrs

Agreementsbetween theChiapas rebels and government of 1996, still not

honouredbythegovernmentside.

Itwould seemhighlydesirable to try to think about indigenous andBlack

peoplesprojects inLatinAmerica in termsof thesewider issuesandother

kinds ofprojects, rather than think of them, somewhat anachronistically in

sociological terms, asbeing aboutwhat happenswith regard to control of

resources and political andjuridical organization in isolated rural spaces.

Some

rural

social

movements

themselves

have

begun

to

think

in

these

broader terms, as they seek to weave transnational alliances with other


29/41

29

movements that share theirmilitancybutmobilize very different kinds of

people(Gledhill2004).Privatefarmerslosingtheirlandtobankshavebegun

to think about what they might have in common with groups that they

previouslyfeared,

detested

and

despised,

such

as

indigenous

people

and

land

invaders.Suchalliancesmaybeshallowandfragile,astheEZLNseffortsto

make commoncause with the El Barzn debtors movement in Mexico

demonstrated, but globalization has fostered the conditions necessary for

leaderships to think through the immediate problems of those that they

represent inmuchbroaderterms, termswhich invokeaclearquestioningof

theshape

of

contemporary

capitalist

development

and

global

power

relations.

Structuralpower,governmentalityandresistance

Anthropological perspectives should surely mirror this new thinking in

breadth,buttheycannoteasilymirrorthekindsofutopianpositionsthathave

inspired intellectuals inotherdisciplines toseeendlessgrounds forhope in

the flipsideofcapitalistglobalization.Weknow toomuchethnographically

about thedifficultiesofsustainingcrossclassand interethniccoalitionsand

aboutthewayneoliberaltechniquesofruleareprovingrelativelysuccessful

at maintaining a high degree of fragmentation amongst the social forces

demandingalternativedevelopmentmodels.

Consider,forexample,ananalysisthatWillemAssies(1999)hasprovidedof

themuchlaudedprogressivesocialmovementsoftheBraziliancityofRecife,

governedby theWorkersPartyandapacesetter in suchdevelopmentsas

participatory citybudgeting.Assiesoffersanumberofuseful correctives to

widelyheldmisconceptionsabout therootsofBrazilsnewpolitics in the

spontaneityofthegrassrootssocialmovements thatemergedundermilitary

rule, noting that the role of the Catholic Church and other institutional

actors should not be underestimated and that middle class professionals


30/41

30

played a significant role in the social construction of the movements.

Politicizedunderthepeculiarcircumstancesofthetransitionfrommilitaryto

democratic rule, with the consolidation of democratic governance these

professionalshave

found

themselves

in

achanged

relationship

with

the

popularbasewhich,asAssiesputsit,offersagoodillustrationofhowonce

radical demands for participation and empowerment blend into a

strategy of neoliberal reform as they acquire connotations of self

advancement and selfreliance to participate as economic subjects (Assies

1999: 223). I have already mentioned the problems posed for indigenous

movementsby

the

disarticulation

of

leaderships

from

local

social

realities

andtheirincorporationintowiderpartypoliticalandNGOcircuitsthathave

their own ideas about appropriate agendas formulticulturalistpolitics and

the politics of recognition. But these problems are now magnifiedby the

neoliberalpremises thatunderliethethinkingofeventheelectableLeft in

countrieslikeBrazilandMexico.

There are still alternatives in the region, notably the much berated

populism of Hugo Chvez in Venezuela, which has proved far more

politically resilient than most commentators expected, despite its limited

deliveryofeconomicimprovements,becauseof itsuncompromisingattitude

to all sectors of the countrys elite and its clear commitment to the

empowermentof

people

of

colour

whatever

the

reaction

of

the

white

middle

classes. But truly significant mass mobilizations in Ecuador and Bolivia,

involvingapluralityofpopularactorsfrontallyconfronting theneoliberal

model,haveyettoproducearealregimechange,whilstPeruseemstohave

reached an impasse inwhich thealmostnegligiblepopularity ratingsof its

currentPresident,AlejandroToledo,havecreatedasmuchnostalgia for the

authoritarian

style

of

his

disgraced

and

exiled

predecessor,

Alberto

Fujimori,

asprovidedopeningsformoreprogressivesocialmovements.


31/41

31

Anthropologists often get excited by the small local victories that social

movements sometimes score against globalization, often in the name of

defendingcultural

patrimony.

It

is

slightly

ironic

that

successful

mobilizations

against the locationofaCostcosuperstoreandagolfcourse in theMexican

state of Morelos have taken place in areas already transformedby heavy

suburbanization (asdemonstratedbydensityofgarden centres) andwhich

drawagooddealoftheirincomefromculturallysensitivetourism,whilst

thefolkwhosegrandfathersfoughtwithEmilianoZapataintheimpoverished

southof

the

state

remain

busy

migrating

to

cope

with

the

impacts

of

the

decline of a sugar industry, thanks to the poor terms offered to Mexican

peasant producers under the NAFTA, the subsequent refusal of the US

governmenteventohonourtheagreementsitdidmakeintheoriginaltreaty

negotiationsasfarassugarisconcerned,andtheunwillingnessofneoliberal

governments to even think about the rather numerous alternative uses of

sugarcane

that

some

of

their

own

technical

experts

strive

to

draw

to

their

attention.

Itmaybe true that real peopleby and large have to dowhat they can to

resistorperhapsbetter,negotiate the impactsofglobalization locally.But

thisdoesnotmeanthattheworldcanactuallybechangedsimplybycreating

indigenousautonomy

in

the

Selva

Lacandona,

however

much

we

might

admiretheresilienceandvisionofpeoplefacedwithbotheconomichardship

andcontinuinghumanrightsabuseor,forthatmatter,theEZLNsnotalways

gentle approach to managing dissent and giving hope to its loyalists.

Maintainingagroundedoptimismofthespiritrequiresarealisticappraisalof

situationsandpossibilities,orientatedtosupportingtheeffortsofmovements

themselves

to

recognize

contradictions

and

seek

ways

of

transcending

them.

This includesthealliancebuildingprocess thatseemssonecessary togiving


32/41

32

localmanifestationsofdissentwiththeexistingpoliticalandeconomicorder

greater leverage. Here, of course, I am getting close to Gramscis original

conception of hegemony in terms of class alliance and intellectual and

moralleadership,

an

essentially

practical

and

political

frame

of

thought.

What

wemight now hope to purge fromGramscis original conceptionwas the

kindofprejudice thatemerges fromhisaccountsof the lackof cultureand

fanaticismof theSouthernItalianpeasantry.But thatstill leavesuswith the

heterogeneityofactuallyexistingpeople,wartsandall,as theZapatistas

oftenuphillstrugglestoinstilpermanentchangesinthepositionofwomenin

manyChiapaneco

communities

attest,

along

with

problems

such

as

the

essentializationofidentitiesthatIhavealreadydiscussed.

Eventhebadguysaremulticulturalistsnow

Identity politics is clearly not incompatible with demands for radical

transformationof theStateand structuresofgovernance thatwouldbenefit

all citizens, or with radical demands for transformation of the existing

structuresofsocialandeconomicpower.Yetitisalsoimportanttorecognize

howfardominantgroupshavetravelledinregionssuchasLatinAmericain

terms of their ability to exploit the new, and apparently more pluralistic,

techniquesof ruleassociatedwithpostmodernorneoliberalsovereignty.A

strikingexampleof this is tobefound in theBrazilianstateofBahia,whose

capital, Salvador,was the original centre of Portuguese colonial power, its

portintegratingitsregionintotheAtlanticeconomybothasexporterofsugar

andtobaccoandasimporteroftheslavesthatcontinuedtoformthebasisof

the plantation economy of the Recncavo region until independent Brazil

belatedlyturneditsbackonbothslaveryandmonarchicalgovernmentatthe

veryendofthe19thcentury.


33/41

33

Inmany senses, Salvador remained closer toAfrica than to other parts of

Brazil, and a good deal of attention has been paid by contemporary

anthropologistsandhistoriansworkingonthecityandtheRecncavotothe

waythe

conservation

of

Black

cultures

of

resistance

(Reis

2003)

laid

the

basisforapersistentpopularrejectionoftheclaimsthatBahiawasaparadise

ofracialdemocracyadvancednotonlybyregionalelitesbutbythedominant

anthropologicalandsociologicalvoicesofanearliergenerationnotsimply

thewhite, Boastrained,Gilberto Freirebut also theblackDonald Pierson,

trained in theChicagoofPark,RedfieldandWirth (Bacelar2001).Although

AfroBrazilians

constitute

amajority

in

Bahia,

there

is

another

form

of

regional identity based on ideologies of racemixing that tends to reject

blacknessasan ingredient11 in favourof the ideaofaEuropeanIndianmix,

thatofthecabocloinhabitantsofthearidbacklandsorserto.Oncedeemeda

degenerate racegiven tomillenarian fanaticism that couldhavenoplace in

Brazilian modernity, the posture that led to the war of extermination

launchedagainst

the

community

founded

by

the

thaumaturge

Antnio

Conselheiro atCanudosbetween 1893 and 1897,was replaced, forty years

laterunderthepopulistregimeofGetulioVargas,withamorebenignnotion

of theredeemabilityandaptness fordevelopmentof thesenearlywhite

citizens.

AsPatricia

Pessar

(2004)

has

shown

in

arecent

study

of

alater

millenarian

episode, thePedroBautistamovement, this reflected thewillingness of the

newgenerationof thaumaturges to collaboratewith theproject ofVargass

11 Although the identity of os sertes and their place in a racialized hierarchy has, in an

important sense,been constructedby others, it is important to stress that denigration of

blackness isembedded in thesocialpracticesof thecommunities themselves,asevidenced,

forexample,bythewayfactionalconflicts inthereligiouscommunitytendtodebouchinto

accusationsthatonesopponentsaredark,andthereforeclearlyofAfricandescent,aiming,

as their kind would, to introduce AfroBrazilian elements into a Christian community,

throughthepractiseofwitchcraft(macumba)(Pessar2004:182183).


34/41

34

EstadoNovo: establishing his communitywith the collaboration of the local

politicalbossandprincipal landowner,oneof the coroneis (colonels)whose

dominionwasreinforcedbytheaccommodationsthatVargasmadewiththe

ruraldominant

classes

to

ensure

the

viability

of

alarger

populist

project

centred on preemptive control of the growing urban working classes,

Bautistahimselfbecamealocalboss,andsubsequentlybrokeredtheentryof

the federal state into his domain by sponsoring one of its agricultural

colonizationprograms.Healsoensuredthat themembersofhiscommunity

cast theirvotes for thepartiesofhispoliticalpatrons,and spared them the

embarrassmentof

an

association

with

fanatics

by

keeping

the

public

profile

ofthecommunitysreligiouslifeaslowaspossible.YetasPessarshows,this

successful strategy of compliant heterodoxy created a number of longer

termcontradictionspreciselybecausethereligiouspracticeofthecommunity

was far frombeing inessential to its reproduction.Thisbecame evenmore

apparent when the official public image of the backlanders underwent a

furthertransformation

in

line

with

the

transition

to

liberal

multiculturalism

andthedeclineinrurallivelihoodpossibilities.

Yesterdaysfanaticsnowhadanewvalueasbearersofa richfolkloric

tradition, now seen as integral to Brazilian national uniqueness, and

community leaders in charge of municipal government enthusiastically

embracedstate

government

offers

to

help

them

to

convert

their

town

into

a

centre for religious tourism. These moves have, however, provoked

oppositionfromthosemembersofthecommunitywhostilltaketheirreligion

seriously, a matter that hasbecome increasingly tangled since faced with

growing competition from Protestant Evangelical Churches, the Catholic

Church now looks more benignly on less orthodox traditions, while still

drawing

the

line

at

spirit

possession,

not

to

mention

reincarnation

(Pessar

2004: 214). At the same time, Pessar suggests, the older linkagesbetween


35/41

35

millenarianism and social and political protest continue to live on in the

stancetakenbypriestsalignedwiththeTheologyofLiberationandtheMST.

Attemptsto

domesticate

forms

of

difference

that

have,

at

least

to

a

degree, been associated with challenges to the existing order of power

relationsmaynot therefore run completely smoothly,not leastbecause the

livelihoodsthattheycanoffertoordinarypeoplearelikelytobelimited.Yet

itisimportanttograsptheprecisenatureoftheeliteforcesbehindthegrowth

of liberalmulticulturalism inBahia.Bahianpolitics todayaredominatedby

theParty

of

the

Liberal

Front

(PFL),

whose

leading

figure

remains

the

powerfulregionalboss(cacique)AntonioCarlosMagalhes,bestknownbyhis

initials,ACM.Aprotgof themilitary,ACMandhispartyhaveplayeda

key role in recent Brazilian politics, reaching accommodations with both

FernandoEnriqueCardosoand thecurrentpresidentof theWorkersParty,

Lula,whichwerevitaltotheabilityofbothtogoverneffectively.

ACMhas adark reputation:hehasbeen accusedof spectaculardegreesof

corruption andpoliticalmurder, and recently escapedbeing expelled from

the federal Senate after a wiretapping scandal, in itself something of a

confirmationofpopularviewsabouttheintrinsicsolidarityinwrongdoingof

the entire political class, irrespective of ideological posture. Yet this very

darknessmay

actually

be

an

asset

in

his

projection

of

apowerful

imaginary

of

hispersonalpower,whichisbackedupmateriallybytheresourcesneededto

sustainawiderangingpatronagenetwork.Bethatasmaybe,thestrengthof

theLiberalsingeneral,alsodemonstratedbythefactthattheoutgoingprefect

ofSalvador,AntnioImbassahy,enjoyedthehighestapprovalratings inthe

countryofanymayorinthecountryin2004,liesverymuchintheskillwith

which

it

has

played

the

multiculturalist

card.

ACM

has

achieved

notable

popularity,bordering ondevotion, inkey sectors ofBahiasmajorityBlack


36/41

36

communityby fosteringpanAfricanism and subsidizingBlack culture in a

waythathasproducedpoliticalaswellascommercialbenefits.

Inorder

to

further

to

take

this

project

further,

Imbassahy

has

invested

heavily

inbeautifyingSalvadorfortourism,inawaythathisopponentsnotehasleft

fartoomanyworkingblackclasspeoplenotmerelystilljobless,butlivingin

deteriorating physical circumstances as massive road construction projects

and condominium developments have taken priority over improving

drainageandother infrastructure investmentsmorerelevant to theneedsof

ordinarycitizens.

Yet

despite

the

loudness

of

some

of

the

voices

of

protest,

the

liberalmulticulturalistprojectcannotbedismissedassimplya figleaf fora

newkind of commercialdevelopment thatmakes Salvador a capital of the

exoticcateringtothedesiresandfantasiesofawiderangeofforeignvisitors,

ranging fromcollegestudents toarmiesofsex tourists.Thepoliticalbaseof

thePFLincludesBlackculturalorganizationswithdeephistoricalroots,andit

isnecessary

to

recognize

that

there

is

quite

acontinuum

of

positions

that

organizations and individuals can adoptbetween complete cooptation and

complicity, on the one hand, and outright rejection and resistance, on the

other.Thisisagenuinegameofnegotiation,whichtheLiberalshaveproved

adept at playing, whilst the overall balance of social forces and realistic

assessmentsofthepossiblehavepromotedrealismamongsttheiropponents,

apreference

for

confrontation

through

street

theatre

rather

than

at

the

barricades.

This isnot to say that these tactics can entirely erase theunderlying social

tensions provoked by grotesque levels of inequality and a deteriorating

labourmarket for poorer Black people as a result of the squeezing of the

incomes

of

real

middle

class

households

(as

distinct

from

those

of

richer

citizens who describe themselves as middleclass). As I have described


37/41

37

elsewhere (Gledhill 2004:345), even thequintessentialannual expressionof

multiculturalisminSalvadorscarnivaltheworldsbiggeststreetparty

notonlygraphicallyexhibits thecleavages that remainbut fails tosuppress

violentmanifestations

of

these

underlying

tensions,

as

much

because

of

as

despiteanoverwhelmingsecuritypresencebythemilitarypolice.What it is

tosayisthatdiscussionofpoliticalpossibilitiesataparticularmomenthasto

start from anunderstanding of structuralpower inboth its socioeconomic

andgovernmentalitydimensions,withafocusonthecomplexdynamicsof

hegemonicprocesses,seeninRoseberryssense,asameansofunderstanding

strugglethat

does

not

start

from

the

premise

that

there

is

some

completely

uncolonized autonomous domain of resistant consciousness yet also

recognizesthescopeforsubalternstoproduceandreproducetheirownideas.

Thatalsomeansnotsettlingfordeconstructionorspeakingtruthtopower

alone (which is not to deny that both strategies have their uses and

appropriatecontexts).

We

may

not

be

able

to

see

the

future

clearly

but

we

learnenoughabout thepastand thepresent tomakemore thangesturesof

solidarity.Anthropologycanmakevaluablecontributionstotheselfreflective

developmentoftheactorsinthepoliticalsituationsthatwestudy.Theymay

asoftenasnotfailtoagreewithourideasabouthowandonwhichfrontsto

move forward,but if intellectuals have anyusefulness at all, itmustbe in

termsof

trying

to

help

to

expand

local

visions.

Our own (personal and collective) visions are, of course, also, inevitably,

parochialandblinkered intheirownway,andIhavenotmanagedtoavoid

thequestionableuseoftheanthropologicalwe inthecourseofthispaper.

Yettherearealternativestoeitheraselfdeludingconfidenceintheauthority

of

our

science

(and

in

perspectives

in

our

field

that

emanate

exclusively

from

Northernacademiesandcitizens)orthecompletedisengagementthatenables


38/41

38

ustowritedeconstructionistproseatasafedistanceorcontentourselveswith

representing the other to and for ourselves.We canbemore active and

engagedparticipantsinthemessyintersectingfieldsofpowerthatwestudy.

Bibliography

AbuLughod,Lila(1990)Theromanceofresistance:tracingtransformations

ofpowerthroughBedouinwomen,AmericanEthnologist17(1):4155.

Arias,Arturo(ed.)(2001)TheRigobertaMenchControversy.Minneapolis:The

University

of

Minnesota

Press.

Assies,Willem(1999)Theory,PracticeandExternalActorsinthemakingof

NewUrbanSocialMovementsinBrazil,BulletinofLatinAmerican

Research18(2):211226.

Bacelar,Jeferson(2001)AHierarquiadasRaas:NegroseBrancosemSalvador.

RiodeJaneiro:PallasEditora.

Beverley,John(1999)SubalternityandRepresentation:ArgumentsinCultural

Theory.DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

Brown,Michael(1996)Onresistingresistance,AmericanAnthropologist98(4):

729735.

DiLeonardo,Micaela(1998)ExoticsatHome:Anthropologies,Others,American

Modernity.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.

Diacon,ToddA.(2004)StringingTogetheraNation:CndidoMarianodaSilva

RondonandtheConstructionofModernBrazil,19061930.Durhamand

London:DukeUniversityPress.

Field,Les(2003)Whoareweandisthatdangerousforthem?,

AnthropologyNews44(8):56.

Fox,JonathanA.(2000)AdvocacyResearchandtheWorldBank:

PropositionsforDiscussion,paperpresentedtothe99thMeetingofthe


39/41

39

AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,SanFrancisco,onlineat

http://lals.ucsc.edu/Fox/Publications.html#transcoalitionsandWBcamps.

Gledhill,John(2004)Neoliberalism,inDavidNugentandJoanVincent

(eds.)A

Companion

to

the

Anthropology

of

Politics,

pp.

332348.

Malden,

MA,OxfordandCarlton,Victoria:BlackwellPublishing.

Gupta,Akhil(1995)Blurredboundaries:thediscourseofcorruption,the

cultureofpolitics,andtheimaginedstate,AmericanEthnologist22(2):

375402.

Gutmann,MatthewC.(2002)TheRomanceofDemocracy:CompliantDefiancein

ContemporaryMexico.

Berkeley:

University

of

California

Press.

Hale,CharlesR.(1994)Resistanceandcontradiction:MiskituIndiansandthe

NicaraguanState,18941987.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Joseph,GilbertM.andDanielNugent(eds.)(1994)EverydayFormsofState

Formation:RevolutionandtheNegotiationofRuleinModernMexico.

DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

Kuper,Adam

(2003)

The

return

of

the

native,

Current

Anthropology

44(3):

389395.

LeyvaSolano,XochitlandGabrielAscencioFranco(1996)Lacandoniaalfilodel

agua.MexicoCity:FondodelaCulturaEconmica.

Lima,AntnioCarlosdeSouza(1995)Umgrandecercodepaz:podertutelar,

indianidadeeformaodoEstadonoBrazil.Petrpolis:Vozes.

Mallon,Florencia

E.

(1995)

Peasant

and

Nation:

The

Making

of

Postcolonial

MexicoandPeru.Berkeley,LosAngelesandLondon:Universityof

CaliforniaPress.

Nuijten,Monique(2004)Betweenfearandfantasy:governmentalityandthe

workingsofpowerinMexico,CritiqueofAnthropology24(2):209230.

Ortner,Sherry(1995)Resistanceandtheproblemofethnographicrefusal,

Comparative

Studies

in

Society

and

History

37(1):

17393.
http://transcoalitionsandwbcamps/http://transcoalitionsandwbcamps/


40/41

40

Pessar,PatriciaR.(2004)FromFanaticstoFolk:BrazilianMillenarianismand

PopularCulture.DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

Ramos,AlcidaRita(1998)Indigenism:EthnicPoliticsinBrazil.Madison:The

Universityof

Wisconsin

Press.

Ramos,AlcidaRita(2003)CommentonAdamKupersTheReturnofthe

Native,CurrentAnthropology44(3):397398.

Reis,JooJos(2003)RebelioEscravanoBrasil:AHistriadoLevantedosMales

em1835(SecondPortugueseEdition).SoPaulo:EditoraSchwarczLtda.

Roseberry,William(1994)Hegemonyandthelanguageofcontention,in

GilbertM.

Joseph

and

Daniel

Nugent

(eds.),

Everyday

Forms

of

State

Formation:RevolutionandtheNegotiationofRuleinModernMexico,pp.

355366.DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

Rubin,JeffreyW.(1996)Decenteringtheregime:cultureandregionalpolitics

inMexico,LatinAmericanResearchReview,31(3):85126.

ScheperHughes,Nancy(1995)Theprimacyoftheethical:propositionsfora

militantanthropology,

Current

Anthropology

36(3):

409440.

Spivak,GayatriC.(1988)Canthesubalternspeak?,inCaryNelsonand

LawrenceGrossberg(eds.)MarxismandtheInterpretationofCultures,pp.

271313.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress.

Starn,Orin(1999)Nightwatch:ThePoliticsofProtestintheAndes.Durhamand

London:DukeUniversityPress.

Stoll,David

(1999)

Rigoberta

Mench

and

the

Story

of

Documents

Beyond Speaking Truth to Power