Viviero de Castro 1998 Cosmological Deixis and ian Perspectivism

Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism Author(s): Eduardo Viveiros de Castro Source: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 469488 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3034157 . Accessed: 19/09/2011 08:22Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

COSMOLOGICAL DEIXIS AND AMERINDIAN PERSPECTIVISMEDUARDO VIVEIROs DE CASTRO

Rio MuseuNacional, dejaneiro Cambridge King'sCollege,

the ideas in Amazonian This studydiscusses the meaning of Amerindian'perspectivism': see cosmologies concerningthe way in which humans,animals and spirits both themselves of of and one another.Such ideas suggestthepossibility a redefinition the classicalcategories or of 'nature','culture'and 'supernature' based on the concept of perspective point of view. The study argues in particular that the antinomy between two characterizationsof of which would deny the attributes indigenousthought- on the one hand 'ethnocentrism', humanityto humans fromother groups,and on the other hand 'animism',which would extend such qualities to beings of other species - can be resolved if one considers the difference between the spiritual and corporalaspectsof beings.... ... la reciprocite deperspectives de mythique ouij'ai vu le caractere propre la pensee (L6vi-Strauss1985: 268)

Introduction This articledeals withthataspectofAmerindian which has been called thought its 'perspectivalquality' (Arhem 1993): the conception, common to many by peoples of the continent, according whichtheworld is inhabited different to sortsof subjectsor persons,human and non-human,which apprehendreality fromdistinct concept pointsofview.This idea cannotbe reducedto our current of relativism it it (Lima 1995; 1996), which at first seems to call to mind.In fact, and is at rightangles,so to speak,to the oppositionbetweenrelativism univerto salism.Such resistance Amerindian by perspectivism the termsof our episteof and transportability the mologicaldebates casts suspicionon the robustness whichtheypresuppose.In particular, manyanthropoloas ontological partitions gistshave alreadyconcluded (albeit for other reasons), the classic distinction between Nature and Culture cannot be used to describedomains internalto non-Western cosmologies without firstundergoinga rigorous ethnographic critique. of Such a critique,in the presentcase, impliesa redistribution the predicates subsumedwithinthetwoparadigmatic thattraditionally sets oppose one another underthe headingsof 'Nature' and 'Culture': universal and particular, objective and subjective, physicaland social,factand value, the givenand the instituted,J. Roy.anthrop. (N.S.) 4, 469-488 Inst.

470

EDUARDO VIVEIROS DE CASTRO

necessityand spontaneity, immanence and transcendence, body and mind, and humanity, animality among many more. Such an ethnographically-based reshuffling our conceptualschemesleadsme to suggest expression, of the 'multinaturalism', designateone of the contrastive to features Amerindian of thought in relation to Western 'multiculturalist' cosmologies. Where the latter are of foundedon the mutual implication the unityof natureand the plurality of of cultures - the firstguaranteedby the objective universality body and of substance,the second generatedby the subjectiveparticularity spiritand meaning- the Amerindianconceptionwould suppose a spiritualunityand a corporeal diversity. Here, culture or the subject would be the form of the whilstnatureor the objectwould be theformof the particular. universal, mustbe This inversion, to perhapstoo symmetrical be morethanspeculative, of developed by means of a plausible phenomenological interpretation which determinethe constitutive Amerindiancosmologicalcategories, condiwe tionsof the relational contexts can call 'nature'and 'culture'.Clearly, then,I between Nature and Culture must be subjected to thinkthatthe distinction critique, not in orderto reachtheconclusionthatsuch a thingdoes not exist but whichdo not exist).The flourishing too (thereare already manythings industry of criticisms the Westernizing of character all dualisms has called for the of of abandonment our conceptually dichotomousheritage, to datethealternabut tiveshave not gone beyond the stageof wishfulunthinking. would prefer I to on themwiththe distinctions gain a perspective our own contrasts, contrasting in actually operating Amerindian perspectivist cosmologies. Perspectivism were thenumerousreferences in The initialstimulusforthe present reflections to Amazonian ethnography an indigenoustheoryaccordingto which the way humans perceiveanimalsand othersubjectivities inhabittheworld - gods, that the of spirits, dead, inhabitants othercosmic levels,meteorological phenomena, even objectsand artefacts differs fromtheway plants, occasionally profoundly in which thesebeingssee humansand see themselves. in humans see humans as humans,animals as Typically, normal conditions, animalsand spirits theysee them) as spirits; howeveranimals(predators) and (if see thatanimals(as prey) spirits humans as animals(as prey)to the same extent see humansas spirits as animals(predators). the same token,animalsand or By spiritssee themselvesas humans: they perceive themselvesas (or become) anthropomorphic beingswhen theyare in theirown houses or villagesand they in theirown habitsand characteristics the formof culture- theysee experience theirfood as human food (jaguars see blood as manioc beer,vulturessee the meatas grilledfish, maggotsin rotting etc.),theysee theirbodilyattributes (fur, or feathers, claws,beaks etc.) as body decorations culturalinstruments, theysee theirsocial system organizedin the same way as human institutions (with as are chiefs,shamans,ceremonies,exogamous moieties,etc.). This 'to see as' refers to and not analogically concepts,althoughin some cases the to literally percepts rather thanon the sensoryaspectof emphasisis placed more on the categorical the phenomenon. In sum, animals are people, or see themselvesas persons. Such a notion is formof each speciesis virtually alwaysassociatedwiththeidea thatthemanifest


471

usually human form, a mere envelope (a 'clothing')which conceals an internal beings trans-specific visibleto theeyesof theparticular speciesor to certain only such as shamans. This internalformis the 'soul' or 'spirit'of the animal: an materito identical humanconsciousness, formally or intentionality subjectivity let us say,in a human bodilyschemaconcealedbehindan animalmask. alizable, between an anthropomorphic At first sightthen,we would have a distinction a spiritualtype,common to animatebeings,and a variablebodily essence of thanbeing of characteristic each individual speciesbutwhich rather appearance, This notionof is a fixedattribute insteada changeableand removableclothing. the 'clothing'is one of the privilegedexpressionsof metamorphosis spirits, beaststhatturninto otherbeasts, dead and shamanswho assume animal form, processin turnedintoanimals- an omnipresent humansthatare inadvertently world' (Riviere1994: 256) proposedbyAmazonian transformational the 'highly 1 ontologies. can and cosmological transformism be seen in various This perspectivism but in general it is only the object of short South American ethnographies, It elaborated.2 can also be found, and commentaries seems to be quite unevenly of value, in thefarnorth NorthAmerica and maybewitheven greater generative populationsof otherpartsof the and Asia, as well as amongsthunter-gatherer In world.3 South America,the cosmologiesof theVaupes area are in thisrespect 1996; Reichel-Dolmatoff highly developed (see Arhem1993; 1996; Hugh-Jones 1985), but otherAmazonian societies,such as the Wari' of Rondonia (Vila?a 1992) and theJurunaof the Middle Xingu (Lima 1995; 1996), also give equal emphasisto the theme. does not usually Some general observationsare necessary.Perspectivism otherbeings);theemphasisseems to involveall animalspecies (besidescovering role such as the a be on those specieswhich perform keysymbolicand practical speciesof preyforhumans- one of the central and the principal greatpredators inverdimension,of perspectival dimensions,possiblyeven the fundamental statusesof predator and prey(Arhem sions refers the relativeand relational to 1993: 11-12; Vila?a 1992: 49-51). On the otherhand, however,it is not always to clear whetherspiritsor subjectivities being attributed each individual are animal, and there are examples of cosmologieswhich deny consciousness to animals (Overing 1985: 249 sqq.; 1986: 245-6) or some other post-mythical (Baer 1994: 89; Viveiros de Castro 1992a: 73-4). spiritual distinctiveness 'masters'('mothersof Nonetheless,as is well known,the notionof animalspirit the game animals', 'mastersof the white-lipped peccaries',etc.) is widespread endowedwithintentionclearly the These spirit masters, throughout continent. as of alityanalogous to thatof humans,function hypostases the animal species field for with which they are associated,therebycreatingan intersubjective relations even whereempirical animalsare not spiritualized. human-animal Amerindian above all, thatifthereis a virtually universal We mustremember, between humans and notion,it is thatof an originalstateof undifferentiation withbeingswhose form, name Mythsarefilled animals,describedin mythology. in mix human and animal attributes a common and behaviour inextricably identical thatwhich definesthe present-day to context intercommunicability, of between 'culture' and 'nature',which intra-human world. The differentiation is mythology, not a themeofAmerindian Levi-Strauss showed to be the central the the processofdifferentiating humanfrom animal,as in our own evolutionist

472


mythology. originalcommon conditionof both humansand animalsis not The animality but ratherhumanity. The great mythicalseparationreveals not so much culturedistinguishing itself from naturebutrather naturedistancing itself fromculture:the myths how animalslostthe qualitiesinherited retained tell or by humans (Brightman1993: 40, 160; Levi-Strauss1985: 14, 190; Weiss 1972: 169-70). Humans are thosewho continueas theyhave alwaysbeen: animalsare not In for ex-humans, humansex-animals. sum,'thecommon pointofreference all beingsofnatureis nothumansas a speciesbutrather humanity a condition' as (Descola 1986: 120). This is a distinction betweenthehuman speciesand the human conditionwhich should be retained.It has an evidentconnexionwith the idea of animal clothinghidinga common spiritual 'essence' and with the issue of the general meaningof perspectivism. themoment, maysimply For we note one of itsmain the of corollaries: pasthumanity animalsis added to their present-day spirituality in hiddenbytheir visibleform orderto producethatextended offoodrestricset tions or precautionswhich eitherdeclare inedible certainanimals that were mythically co-substantial with humans,or demand theirdesubjectivization by shamanisticmeans before they can be consumed (neutralizingthe spirit, transubstantiating meat into plant food, semantically the reducingit to other animalsless proximate humans),underthethreat illness,conceivedof as a to of cannibalcounter-predation of undertaken the spirit thepreyturnedpredator, by in a lethalinversion perspectives of whichtransforms human intoanimal.4 the It is worth pointing out that Amerindianperspectivism has an essential relation withshamanismand withthevalorization the hunt.The association of between shamanism and this 'venatic ideology' is a classic question (for thatthisis Amazonia,see Chaumeil 1983: 231-2; Crocker1985: 17-25). I stress a matter symbolic of not horticulturists as such importance, ecologicalnecessity: the Tukano or theJuruna(who in any case fishmore than theyhunt) do not differ much fromcircumpolarhuntersin respectof the cosmologicalweight on of conferred animalpredation, spiritual subjectivation animalsand thetheory intentionalities accordingto which the universeis populated by extra-human endowedwiththeir own perspectives. thissense,thespiritualization plants, In of or seemsto me to be secondary derivative meteorological phenomenaor artefacts in comparison withthespiritualization animals:theanimalis theextra-human of of relations withotherprototypical prototype the Other,maintaining privileged of such as affines figures alterity, (Arhem 1996; Descola 1986: 317-30; Erikson 1984: 110-12). This huntingideology is also and above all an ideology of the betweenhumans shamans,in so faras itis shamanswho administer relations sincetheyalone are capableof and thespiritual componentoftheextra-humans, are assuming the point of view of such beings and, in particular, capable of is as to returning tell the tale. If Westernmulticulturalism relativism public as thenAmerindianperspectivist shamanismis multinaturalism cosmic policy, politics.

Animismis of The reader will have noticedthatmy'perspectivism' reminiscent thenotion of 'animism' recentlyrecuperatedby Descola (1992; 1996). Statingthat all of conceptualizations non-humansalwaysreferto the social domain, Descola


473

where the differnature:totemism, threemodes of objectifying distinguishes thatis, ences betweennaturalspeciesare used as a model forsocial distinctions; in betweennatureand cultureis metaphorical character wherethe relationship where and markedby discontinuity (bothwithinand betweenseries); animism, social life'organizethe relationsbetween categoriesstructuring the 'elementary betweennatureand a species,thusdefining socialcontinuity humansand natural and social characterof foundedon the attribution human dispositions culture, of typical Western isticsto 'naturalbeings'(Descola 1996: 87-8); and naturalism, betweennature, domain the whichsupposes an ontological duality cosmologies, areas separated by of necessity,and culture, the domain of spontaneity, of The 'animic mode' is characteristic societies in metonymicdiscontinuity. of focusof the objectification natureand of its which animalsare the 'strategic socialization'(1992: 115), as is thecase amongstindigenouspeoples ofAmerica, reigning supreme over those social morphologieslackingin elaborateinternal or But segmentations. thismode can also be foundco-existing combinedwith exist,the Bororo and theiraroelbope totemism,wherein such segmentations dualismbeingsuch a case.5 which I cannot discuss here as fullyas it These ideas formpartof a theory would merit. I merely comment on the contrast between animism and angle from the original one. naturalism but from a somewhat different (Totemism, as defined by Descola, seems to me to be a heterogeneous rather thancosmological:itis not a system classificatory phenomenon,primarily of relations betweennatureand cultureas is the case in theothertwo modes, but rather purelylogicaland differential of correlations.) whichpostulates social character the Animismcould be defined an ontology as of relationsbetween humans and non-humans:the space betweennatureand axiom: relations societyis itselfsocial. Naturalismis foundedon the inverted betweensociety and naturearethemselves natural. Indeed,ifin theanimicmode is the distinction'nature/culture' internalto the social world, humans and animals being immersedin the same socio-cosmicmedium (and in this sense ontology, the then in naturalist 'nature'is a partof an encompassingsociality), is distinction to 'nature/culture' internal nature(and in thissense,humansociety is one natural phenomenon amongst others). Animism has 'society' as the and has 'nature':these poles function, unmarkedpole, naturalism respectively as contrastively, the universaldimension of each mode. Thus animism and naturalism hierarchical metonymical are and structures them (thisdistinguishes from which is based on a metaphoric correlation betweenequipollent totemism, opposites). In Western is naturalist the interface natural:humans ontology, nature/society are organismslike the rest,body-objects 'ecological' interaction in with other all bodies and forces, ofthemruledbythenecessary laws of biologyand physics; express, naturalforces.Social relations, and thereby 'productive forces'harness, or thatis,contractual instituted relations betweensubjects, onlyexistinternal can to human society.But how alien to nature- this would be the problem of the of naturalism aretheserelations? of Giventheuniversality nature, status the humanand socialworldis unstableand,as thehistory thought shows, ofWestern itperpetually oscillatesbetweena naturalistic monism ('sociobiology'beingone of itscurrent dualismof nature/culture ('culturalism' avatars)and an ontological of dualism,forall expression).The assertion this latter being its contemporary

474


of that,only reinforces finalreferential the character the notion of nature,by revealing itself be thedirect to descendant theoppositionbetweenNature and of Culture is the modernname of Spirit- let us recallthe distinction Supernature. - or at and Geisteswissenschaften theleastitis thename betweenNaturwissenschaften of the compromise between Nature and Grace. Of animism,we would be is temptedto say that the instability located in the opposite pole: there the and animality constiproblem is how to administer mixtureof humanity the tutinganimals,and not, as is the case amongstourselves,the combinationof a cultureand naturewhich characterize humans; the point is to differentiate 'nature'out of the universal sociality. of and However,can animismbe definedas a projection differences qualities model internal the humanworldonto non-humanworlds,as a 'socio-centric' to are in whichcategories social relations used to map theuniverse? and This interin 'if pretation analogyis explicit some glosseson thetheory: totemicsystems by model society afternature,then animic systemsmodel nature aftersociety' is (Arhem 1996: 185). The problemhere,obviously, to avoid any undesirable proximity with the traditional sense of 'animism', or with the reduction of classifications' emanationsof social morphology; but equally the 'primitive to of between problemis to go beyondotherclassicalcharacterizations the relation societyand naturesuch as Radcliffe-Brown's.6 Ingold (1991; 1996) showed how schemes of analogicalprojectionor social modelling of nature escape naturalistreductionism only to fall into a 'really natural' nature from nature/culture dualism which by distinguishing to cosmologicalantinomy 'culturally constructed' naturerevealsitself be a typical The notion of model or metaphorsupposes a faced with infinite regression. are betweena domain whereinsocial relations constitutive previousdistinction and metaphorical. and literal and another where they are representational as Animism,interpreted human sociality projectedonto the non-humanworld, but of would be nothing the metaphor a metonymy. to is therefore, thatofknowing Amongstthequestionsremaining be resolved, use to whetheranimismcan be describedas a figurative of categories pertaining the thehuman-socialdomainto conceptualize domainofnon-humansand their with the former. Anotherquestion: if animismdepends on the attrirelations faculties animals,and the same form and sensory to butionof human cognitive between humans and of subjectivity, then what in the end is the difference to animals?If animalsarepeople,thenwhydo theynotsee us as people?Why, be if naturein precise,the perspectivism? Finally, animismis a way of objectifying whichthe dualismof nature/culture not hold,thenwhatis to be done with does the of the abundantindicationsregarding centrality this oppositionto South Americancosmologies? Arewe dealingwith 'totemic illusion',ifnot just another withan ingenuousprojection our Western of dualism? Ethnocentrism In a well-knonv essay, ceases Levi-Strauss observedthatfor'savages' humanity at the boundaryof the group,a notionwhich is exemplified the widespread by of auto-ethnonym meaning'real humans',which,in turn,impliesa definition as to Therefore, strangers somehow pertaining the domain of the extra-human. of would not be the privilege theWest but a naturalideological ethnocentrism


475

illustrates universal the inherent human collectivelife.Levi-Strauss to attitude, withan anecdote: reciprocity thisattitude ofof In the GreaterAntilles,some yearsafter the discovery America,whilstthe Spanish were whetherthe nativeshad a soul or not, dispatching inquisitionalcommissionsto investigate theseverynativeswere busy drowningthe whitepeople theyhad capturedin orderto find whetheror not the corpseswere subjectto putrefaction out,after lengthy observation, (1973: 384).

derived famous the whichLevi-Strauss The generalpointofthisparable(from and the moral: 'The barbarian first foremost man who believesin barbarism') is consideredthatonlythe is quite simple:the Indians,liketheEuropean invaders, are groupto which theybelongincarnates humanity; strangers on the otherside culturefrom of the borderwhich separateshumans fromanimals and spirits, As and conditionforthe existenceof ethnocennatureand supernature. matrix trism,the nature/culture oppositionappearsto be a universalof social apperception. of was writing these lines,the strategy vindiAt the timewhen Levi-Strauss of that catingthe fullhumanity savageswas to demonstrate theymade the same distinctionsas we do: the proof that they were true humans is that they consideredthattheyalone were the true humans. Like us, theydistinguished are culturefromnatureand theytoo believedthatNaturvdlker alwaysthe others. The universality the culturaldistinction of betweenNature and Culture bore witnessto theuniversality cultureas humannature.In sum,theanswerto the of question of the Spanish investigators (which can be read as a sixteenth-century versionof the 'problemof otherminds') was positive:savagesdo have souls. has Now, everything changed. The savages are no longer ethnocentric but rather cosmocentric;insteadof havingto prove thattheyare humans because they distinguishthemselvesfrom animals, we now have to recognize how inhumanwe are foropposing humans to animals in a way theynever did: for themnatureand cultureare partof the same sociocosmicfield.Not onlywould Amerindiansput a wide berthbetween themselvesand the Great Cartesian Divide which separated humanity fromanimality, their but views anticipate the fundamental lessonsofecologywhichwe areonlynow in a positionto assimilate to of (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1976). Before,the Indians' refusal concede predicates humanity othermen was of note; now we stress to thattheyextendsuch predicates far beyond the frontiers their own species in a demonstration of of 'ecosophic' knowledge(Arhem1993) which we should emulatein as faras the limitsof our objectivism permit. Formerly, had been necessary combatthe it to assimilationof the savage mind to narcissistic animism,the infantile stage of naturalism, showingthattotemismaffirmed cognitivedistinction the between cultureand nature;now, neo-animismrevealsitselfas the recognition the of universaladmixture subjectsand objects,humans and non-humansagainst of modernhubris, primitive post-modern the and 'hybrids', borrowa termfrom to Latour(1991). Two antinomiesthen,which are, in fact,only one: eitherAmerindiansare ethnocentrically 'stingy'in the extension theirconceptof humanity of and they 'totemically' oppose natureand culture;or theyare cosmocentric and 'animic' and do not professto such a distinction, being models of relativist tolerance, a of postulating multiplicity pointsofview on theworld.

476

EDUARDO

VIVEIROS DE CASTRO

I believethatthesolutionto theseantinomies7 notin favouring branch lies one over the other,sustaining,for example, the argumentthat the most recent of is characterization Americanattitudes thecorrect one and relegating other the to theouterdarkness pre-post-modernity. of Rather, pointis to show thatthe the 'thesis'as well as the 'antithesis' true(both correspond solid ethnographic are to intuitions), thattheyapprehend same phenomenafromdifferent but the angles; and also it is to show that both are false in thattheyreferto a substantivist conceptualization the categoriesof Nature and Culture (whetherit be to of or affirm negatethem)which is not applicableto Amerindian cosmologies. The firstpoint to be considered is that the Amerindianwords which are in as usuallytranslated 'human being'and whichfigure thosesupposedlyethnocentric self-designations notdenotehumanity a natural do as species.They refer rather the social conditionof personhood,and theyfunction(pragmatically to when not syntactically) less as nouns than as pronouns. They indicate the position of the subject; they are enunciativemarkers,not names. Far from a of manifesting semanticshrinking a common name to a propername (taking thesewordsmove in theoppositedirection, 'people' to be thename ofthetribe), to goingfromsubstantive perspective (using'people' as a collective pronoun'we have that people/us'). For this very reason, indigenouscategoriesof identity enormous contextual of variability scope thatcharacterizes pronouns,marking local group,all humans,or even all contrastively Ego's immediatekin,his/her their as seems largely beingsendowedwithsubjectivity: coagulation 'ethnonyms' to be an artefact interactions of Nor withethnographers. is it by chance thatthe of whichentertheliterature not self-desigare majority Amerindian ethnonyms nations,but rathernames (frequently pejorative)conferred other groups: by is not ethnonymic objectivation primordially appliedto others, to theones in the position of subject.Ethnonymsare names of thirdparties;theybelong to the not of witha of category 'they' to the category 'we'. This, bytheway,is consistent avoidance of self-reference the level of personal onomastics: on widespread names are not spokenby the bearersnor in theirpresence;to name is to externalize,to separate(from)the subject. Thus self-references such as 'people' mean 'person', not 'member of the human species',and theyare personalpronounsregistering pointofview of the the subjecttalking, propernames. To say,then,thatanimalsand spirits not are to people is to saythattheyare persons,and to attribute non-humansthe capacities of conscious intentionality agencywhich definethe position of the and as withwhichthesenonare subject.Such capacities objectified thesoul or spirit has humansare endowed. Whatever possessesa soul is a subject,and whatever a soul is capable of havinga point of view.Amerindian souls, be theyhuman or animal,are thus indexicalcategories, cosmologicaldeicticswhose analysiscalls or as not so much foran animist psychology substantialist ontology fora theory of the signor a perspectival pragmatics (Taylor1993a; 1993b;Viveirosde Castro 1992b). would be a subject;or Thus, every beingto whom a pointofview is attributed whereverthereis a point of view thereis a subjectposition.Whilstour better, the constructionist can epistemology be summed up in the Saussureanformula: the pointof viewcreates object the subject being the original,fixed condition whence the point of view emanates- Amerindianontologicalperspectivism creates subject; the is whatever activated proceedsalongthelinesthatthepoint view of


477

or 'agented'bythepointofviewwill be a subject.8 This is whyterms such as wari' (Vilaca 1992), dene(McDonnell 1984) or masa(Arhem1993) mean 'people', but theycan be used for- and therefore used by - verydifferent classes of beings: used by humans they denote human beings; but used by peccaries,howler monkeys beaverstheyself-refer peccaries, or or to howlermonkeys beavers. As it happens,however, these non-humansplaced in the subjectperspective do not merely'call' themselves'people'; theysee themselvesanatomically and as The symbolicspiritualization animalswould implytheir of culturally humans. imaginary hominization and culturalization; thustheanthropomorphic-anthroof pocentriccharacter indigenousthoughtwould seem to be unquestionable. is different at issue. Anybeingwhich However,I believethatsomething totally vicariouslyoccupies the point of view of reference, being in the position of as subject,sees itself a memberof the human species.The human bodilyform and human culture - the schemata of perceptionand action 'embodied' in specificdispositions- are deictics of the same type as the self-designations discussed above. They are reflexive apperceptive or schematisms which all by and humanpredicates subjectsapprehend and themselves, notliteral constitutive projected metaphorically (i.e. improperly)onto non-humans. Such deictic 'attributes' immanentin theviewpoint, and move with it (Brightman are 1993: 47). Human beings- naturally enjoy the same prerogative therefore and see themselves such.9It is not thatanimalsare subjectsbecause theyare humans as in disguise,but rather thattheyare human because theyare potentialsubjects. This is to say Culture theSubject's is nature; is the formin which everysubject it experiencesits own nature.Animismis not a projectionof substantive human qualities cast onto animals,but ratherexpressesthe logical equivalence of the reflexive that relations humansand animalseach have to themselves: salmon are to (see) salmon as humans are to (see) humans,namely, (as) human.10 as we If, have observed,the common conditionof humansand animalsis humanity not this animality, is because 'humanity'is the name forthe generalformtakenby the Subject. Multinaturalism Withthiswe may have discardedanalogicalanthropocentrism, only apparbut to For ently adoptrelativism."1 would thiscosmologyof multiple viewpoints not implythat'every perspective equallyvalid and true'and that'a correct true is and representation theworld does not exist'(Arhem1993: 124)? of But thisis exactly question: is theAmerindian the in perspectivist theory fact a of of asserting multiplicity representations the same world? It is sufficient to considerethnographic evidenceto perceivethatthe oppositeapplies: all beings see ('represent') world in thesameway- whatchangesis theworldthatthey the see. Animals impose the same categoriesand values on reality humans do: as their worlds, like ours, revolve around hunting and fishing,cooking and fermented drinks,cross-cousinsand war, initiationrituals,shamans, chiefs, is spirits. 'Everybody involvedin fishing and hunting; everybody involvedin is feasts,social hierarchy, chiefs,war, and disease, all the way up and down' (Guedon 1984: 142). If the moon, snakes and jaguars see humans as tapirsor white-lipped peccaries(Baer 1994: 224), it is because they, us, eat tapirsand like peccaries,people's food. It could only be thisway,since,being people in their

478

EDUARDO

VIVEIROS DE CASTRO

own sphere,non-humanssee things 'people' do. But the thingsthat as theysee aredifferent: whatto us is blood, is maize beerto thejaguar; whatto thesouls of the dead is a rotting corpse,to us is soakingmanioc; what we see as a muddy the waterhole, tapirssee as a greatceremonialhouse. of (Multi)cultural relativism supposes a diversity subjectiveand partialrepreand unifiednature, each striving graspan external to which remains sentations, to Amerindian perfectly indifferent those representations. thought proposesthe or opposite: a representational phenomenological unity which is purely or One pronominal deictic, indifferently appliedto a radically objectivediversity. is for single 'culture', multiple 'natures' - perspectivism multinaturalist, a is perspective not a representation. of are is because representations a property A perspective not a representation 12 whereasthepointofview is locatedin thebody. The ability themind or spirit, to adopta pointofview is undoubtedly powerofthesoul, and non-humansare a between subjects in so far as they have (or are) spirit;but the differences lies viewpoints(and a viewpointis nothingifnot a difference) not in the soul. identicalin all species,it can onlysee the same things Since the soul is formally of is everywhere the difference given in the specificity bodies. This permits answersto be found for our questions: if non-humansare persons and have themfromhumans?And why,being people, do souls, thenwhat distinguishes theynot see us as people? Animalssee in thesameway as we do different thingsbecause theirbodies are different fromours.I am not referring physiological to differences as faras that is concerned, of Amerindians recognizea basic uniformity bodies - but rather to whichrender bodyof every or the affects, dispositions capacities speciesunique: what it eats, how it communicates, where it lives,whetherit is gregariousor and The visibleshape of the body is a powerfulsign of these solitary, so forth. in differences affect, althoughit can be deceptivesince a human appearance could, forexample,be concealingajaguar-affect. Thus, what I call 'body' is not a synonym distinctive for substanceor fixedshape; it is an assemblageof affects orwaysofbeingthatconstitute habitus. a Betweentheformal of subjectivity souls and thesubstantial of thereis an intermediate materiality organisms planewhich is occupied by the body as a bundle of affects and capacitiesand which is the originof perspectives. between bodies, however,is only apprehendablefrom an The difference exterior viewpoint, an other, by since,foritself, every typeof beinghas the same form(the genericformof a human being): bodies are theway in which alterity is apprehendedas such. In normalconditions do not see animalsas people, we and vice-versa, because our respective which they bodies (and the perspectives of allow) are different. Thus, if 'culture'is a reflexive perspective the subject, objectifiedthroughthe concept of soul, it can be said that 'nature' is the if viewpoint which the subject takes of other body-affects; Culture is the thenNature theform Other body, is,as theobjectfor is that Subject'snature, ofthe as a subject.Culturetakesthe self-referential ofthepronoun'I'; natureis the form formof the non-personor the object,indicatedby the impersonal pronoun 'it' (Benveniste1966a: 256). the thenit is easily If,in the eyes ofAmerindians, bodymakesthe difference, understoodwhy,in the anecdote told by Levi-Strauss, methodsof investithe gationintothe humanity the other, of employedby theSpanishand theinhabi-


479

For showed such asymmetry. theEuropeans,the issue was tantsof theAntilles, the possesseda soul; fortheIndians,theaimwas to find to decidewhether others the out what kindof body the othershad. For theEuropeansthe greatdiacritic, is in marker difference perspective, thesoul (are Indianshumansor animals?); of The Europeans fortheIndiansitis thebody (are Europeanshumansor spirits?). neverdoubted thatthe Indians had bodies; the Indians neverdoubted thatthe Europeans had souls (animals and spiritshave them too). What the Indians the wantedto knowwas whether bodies ofthose'souls' were capableofthesame affects theirown - whethertheyhad the bodies of humans or the bodies of as consisted and spirits, non-putrescible protean.In sum: European ethnocentrism in doubting whetherother bodies have the same souls as they themselves; in Amerindianethnocentrism doubting whether other souls had the same bodies. thought (1994; 1996), the statusof humansin Western As Ingold has stressed ambiguous: on the one hand, humankindis an animal species is essentially is amongstothers,and animality a domain thatincludeshumans; on the other whichexcludesanimals.These two statuses is hand,humanity a moralcondition notionof 'human nature'.In other and disjunctive co-existin the problematic words, our cosmology postulates a physical continuityand a metaphysical the betweenhumansand animals, former makingofman an object discontinuity an Spiritor mindis forthenatural sciences,thelatter objectforthe'humanities'. in it itraisesus above animalsand matter general, distinour great differentiator: guishes cultures,it makes each person unique beforehis or her fellowbeings. it The body,in contrast, the major integrator: connectsus to the restof the is which,in turn, (DNA, carbonchemistry) substrate living, unitedby a universal links up with the ultimatenatureof all materialbodies.'3 In contrastto this, and a physicaldiscontinuity continuity Amerindianspostulatea metaphysical the in resulting animism, latter in betweenthebeingsofthe cosmos,theformer a the or substancebut rather perspectivism: spirit soul (here not an immaterial but a system organism while the body (not a material reflexive form)integrates, of activeaffects) differentiates.

Thespirit's many bodiesin The idea that the body appears to be the greatdifferentiator Amazonian to cosmologies- thatis, as thatwhich unitesbeingsof the same type, the extent thatit differentiates them fromothers- allows us to reconsidersome of the of classicquestionsof the ethnology the regionin a new light. in of Thus, the now old theme of the importance corporeality Amazonian societies (a theme that much predatesthe current'embodiment'craze - see For foundations. example,itbecomes possible Seegeretal. 1979) acquiresfirmer to gain a betterunderstanding why the categoriesof identity be they of expressedthroughbodily personal,social or cosmological- are so frequently The universal food practices and body decoration. through idioms,particularly symbolicimportanceof food and cooking regimesin Amazonia - fromthe to 'raw and the cooked' of Levi-Strauss, the Piro idea thatwhat mythological fromwhite people is 'real food' makes them different literally (i.e. naturally) (Gow 1991); fromthe food avoidanceswhich define'groups of substance'in Central Brazil (Seeger 1980) to the basic classification beings accordingto of

480


their eating habits (Baer 1994: 88); from the ontological productivity of commensality, similarity diet and relative condition of prey-objectand of predator-subject (Vilaca 1992) to the omnipresence of cannibalism as the 'predicative'horizon of all relationswith the other, be they matrimonial, or de demonstrates alimentary bellicose(Viveiros Castro 1993) - thisuniversality thatthe setof habitsand processesthatconstitute bodies is precisely location the fromwhich identity difference and emerge. The same can be said ofthe intensesemioticuse ofthebody in the definition of personal identitiesand in the circulationof social values (Mentore 1993; Turner 1995). The connexion between this overdetermination the body of of recoursein theAmazonian (particularly itsvisiblesurface)and the restricted socius objectscapableofsupporting to relations thatis,a situation whereinsocial such as thosecharacteristic exchangeis not mediatedbymaterial objectifications of giftand commodityeconomies - has been shrewdly pinpointedby Turner, who has shown how the human bodytherefore mustappearas the prototypical social object. However,theAmerindian emphasison the social construction of thebodycannotbe takenas theculturalization a natural of substract rather but as the productionof a distinctly human body,meaningnaturally human. Such a process seems to be expressing so much a wish to 'de-animalize'the body not its to through culturalmarking, rather particularize body stilltoo generic, but a it as differentiatingfromthe bodies of otherhuman collectivities well as from those of otherspecies. The body,as the siteof differentiating perspective, must be differentiated the highest to degreein ordercompletely expressit. to The human body can be seen as the locus of the confrontation between and animality, not because it is essentially but animal by natureand humanity needs to be veiled and controlledby culture(Riviere 1994). The body is the instrument at the same timetheobjectpar and subject'sfundamental expressive that excellence, which is presented the sightof the other.It is no coincidence, to of then,thatthe maximumsocial objectification bodies,theirmaximalparticuis larizationexpressedin decorationand ritualexhibition at the same time the momentof maximumanimalization (Goldman 1975: 178; Turner1991; 1995), when bodies are coveredby feathers, colours,designs,masksand otheranimal to prostheses. Man ritually clothedas an animal is the counterpart the animal into transformed an animal,revealsto himself supernaturally naked.The former, formand the 'natural'distinctiveness his body; the latter, of freeof its exterior itself human,showsthe'supernatural' of The model as revealing similarity spirit. is of spirit the human spirit, the model of bodyis the bodies of animals;and but iffromthe pointof view of the subjectculturetakesthe genericformof '' and natureof 'it/they', then the objectification the subject to itselfdemands a of i.e. of singularization bodies- whichnaturalizes culture, embodiesit- whilstthe of at subjectification theobjectimpliescommunication thelevelofspirit which culturalizes it. the nature,i.e. supernaturalizes Put in these terms, Amerindian distinction Nature/Culture, of beforeit is dissolvedin the name of a common animichuman-animal mustbe re-readin the lightof somaticperspecsociality, tivism. It is important notethat of to theseAmerindian bodiesarenotthought as given as but rather made. Therefore, emphasison the methodsforthe continuous an fabrication thebody(Viveiros Castro 1979); a notionofkinship a process of de as of activeassimilation individuals(Gow 1989; 1991) throughthe sharingof of


481

of bodily substances,sexual and alimentary and not as a passive inheritance of which inscribesit in the flesh essence; the theory memory some substantial the which situates (Viveirosde Castro 1992a: 201-7), and more generally theory knowledge in the body (Kensinger 1995: ch. 22; McCallum 1996). The AmerindianBildunghappens in the body more than in the spirit:there is no a redefinition itsaffects of 'spiritual' changewhichis nota bodilytransformation, between body and soul is while the distinction and capacities.Furthermore, as obviously pertinentto these cosmologies, it cannot be interpreted an and discontinuity (Townsley1993: 454-5). As bundlesof affects sites ontological bodies 'are' souls,just, incidenrather than material organisms, of perspective, as tally, souls and spirits'are' bodies. The dual (or plural) conception of the between the human soul, widespread in indigenousAmazonia, distinguishes site of of soul (or souls) of the body,reifiedregister an individual'shistory, the and a 'true soul', pure, formalsubjectivesingularity, memoryand affect, abstract markof a person (e.g. McCallum 1996; Viveirosde Castro 1992a: 201which inhabitthe 14). On the otherhand,the souls of the dead and the spirits but entities, equallytypesof bodies, endowed with universeare not immaterial Indeed, body and soul, just like nature and properties affects sui generis. or entities ontological self-subsistent to culture, not correspond substantives, do perspectives. to provinces, rather pronounsor phenomenological but thangiven character the body,a conceptionthat of The performative rather itself'culturally' in order for it to be 'naturally' requires it to differentiate a has metamorphosis, possidifferent, an obvious connexionwith interspecific by by cosmologies.We need not be surprised a way bility suggested Amerindian yet of thinking which positsbodies as the greatdifferentiators at the same time statestheirtransformability. cosmologysupposes a singulardistinctiveness Our of minds, but not even forthis reason does it declare communication(albeit or problem) to be impossible, denythe mental/spiritual solipsismis a constant transformations induced by processes such as education and religious is it because thespiritual the locus of difference conversion;in truth, is precisely that conversionbecomes necessary(the Europeans wanted to know whether Indians had souls in order to modifythem). Bodily metamorphosisis the In conversion.14 the to Amerindian counterpart theEuropean themeof spiritual our cosmology threatens sameway,ifsolipsismis thephantomthatcontinuously - raising fearof notrecognizing ourselvesin our 'own kind'because theyare the of not like us, giventhe potentially absolutesingularity minds- thenthe possiof of expressesthe oppositefear, no longerbeing able to bility metamorphosis betweenthe human and the animal,and, in particular, fearof the differentiate withinthebodyoftheanimalone eats"5 hence the seeingthehumanwho lurks of potency and linkedto the spiritual importance food prohibitions precautions of animals,mentionedabove. The phantomof cannibalismis the Amerindian derivesfromthe uncertainty equivalentto theproblemof solipsism:ifthe latter of a as to whetherthe naturalsimilarity bodies guarantees real community of prevailoverthe thentheformer of suspectsthatthesimilarity souls might spirit, real differences body and thatall animals thatare eaten might,despite the of shamanistic efforts de-subjectivize them,remainhuman.This, ofcourse,does to such as not prevent havingamongstourselvesmore or less radicalsolipsists, us and therelativists, that societiesbe purposefully moreor variousAmerindian nor less literally cannibalistic.'6

482


The notion of metamorphosis directly is linked to the doctrineof animal 'clothing',to which I have referred. How are we to reconcilethe idea thatthe withthethemeof the 'appearance' bodyis the siteof differentiating perspectives and 'essence' which is always evoked to interpret animismand perspectivism (Arhem 1993: 122; Descola 1986: 120; Hugh-Jones1996; Riviere1994)? Here seems to me to lie an importantmistake,which is that of taking bodily 'appearance'to be inert and false, whereasspiritual 'essence' is activeand real(see the definitive observations Goldman 1975: 63). I arguethatnothing of could be the of further from Indians'mindswhen theyspeakofbodies in terms 'clothing'. It is not so much thatthebodyis a clothing rather but thatclothing a body. is We are dealingwithsocietieswhichinscribe efficacious meaningsonto theskin,and which use animal masks (or at least know theirprinciple)endowed with the to the of powermetaphysically transform identities thosewho wearthem,ifused in the appropriate ritualcontext.To put on mask-clothing not so much to is but to the conceal a humanessencebeneathan animalappearance, rather activate powers of a different body.17The animal clothesthatshamansuse to travelthe cosmos are not fantasies instruments: but theyare akinto divingequipment,or masks.The intention when donninga wet suitis space suits,and notto carnival like a fish,to breatheunderwater, to conceal oneself to be able to function not under a strangecovering. In the same way, the 'clothing' which, amongst 'essence' of a human type, not a mere disguisebut is animals,coversan internal their distinctive and capacitieswhich equipment, endowed with the affects defineeach animal.'8 is truethatappearances be deceptive(Hallowell 1960; It can is Riviere1994); but my impression thatin Amerindian narratives whichtakeas a themeanimal 'clothing'the interest more in what these clothesdo rather lies thanwhattheyhide. Besides this,betweena beingand itsappearanceis itsbody, which is more thanjust that- and theverysame narratives relatehow appearances are always 'unmasked' by bodily behaviourwhich is inconsistent with them. In short:thereis no doubt thatbodies are discardableand exchangeable to and that'behind' themlie subjectivities which are formally identical humans. But the idea is not similarto our oppositionbetweenappearanceand essence; it the objectivepermutability bodies which is based in the of merelymanifests subjective equivalenceof souls. Anotherclassic theme in South Americanethnology which could be interwithin thisframework thatofthesociologicaldiscontinuity is betweenthe preted distinction livingand the dead (Carneiro da Cunha 1978). The fundamental betweenthe livingand the dead is made by the body and precisely not by the which prevailsas differentiator over the spirit;death is a bodily catastrophe common 'animation' of the living and the dead. Amerindian cosmologies dedicateequal or greater interest theway in whichthedead see reality they to as do to the vision of animals,and as is the case forthe latter, theyunderlinethe radicaldifferences vis-a-vis world of the living.To be precise,being definithe fromtheirbodies,the dead are not human.As spirits definedby tively separated theirdisjunctionfroma human body,the dead are logicallyattracted the to bodies of animals;thisis whyto die is to transform an animal(Pollock 1985: into 95; Schwartzman1988: 268; Turner1995: 152; Vilaca 1992: 247-55), as it is to transform otherfigures bodilyalterity, as affines enemies.In this into of such and if a betweenhumans manner, animismaffirms subjectiveand social continuity establishesan objective and animals, its somatic complement,perspectivism,


483

discontinuity, equallysocial,betweenlive humansand dead humans.'9 Having examined the differentiating component of Amerindianperspeca tivism,it remains for me to attribute cosmological 'function'to the transspecificunityof the spirit.This is the point at which, I believe, a relational definition could be givenfora category, whichnowadayshas fallen Supernature, into disrepute(actually, ever since Durkheim),but whose pertinence seems to me to be unquestionable. domains Apartfromitsuse in labellingcosmographic of a 'hyper-uranian' type, or in defininga third type of intentionalbeings in occurring indigenouscosmologies,which are neitherhuman nor animal (I referto 'spirits'),the notion of supernature may serve to designatea specific relational contextand particular which is as distinct phenomenological quality, fromthe intersubjective relations thatdefinethe social worldas fromthe 'interwiththebodies of animals. objective'relations Followingthe analogywiththepronominal (Benveniste1966a; 1966b)we set 'I' can see thatbetweenthereflexive of culture(the generator the conceptsof of soul or spirit)and the impersonal'it' of nature (definerof the relationwith or somaticalterity), thereis a positionmissing, the 'you', the second person, the othertakenas othersubject, whose pointofview is the latent echo ofthatofthe the context. An 'I'. I believethatthisconceptcan aid in determining supernatural abnormal contextwherein a subject is captured by another cosmologically dominantpoint of view,whereinhe is the 'you' of a non-humanperspective, an is as of Supernature theform theOther Subject, of implying objectification the human I as a 'you' for this Other. The typical'supernatural' situationin an Amerindian world is the meetingin the forest betweena man - alwayson his own - and a being which is seen at first merelyas an animal or a person,then revealsitself a spirit a dead personand speaksto the man (the dynamics or as of thiscommunication well analysedbyTaylor1993a).20 These encounters are can be lethalforthe interlocutor who, overpowered the non-humansubjectivity, by passes over to its side, transforming himselfinto a being of the same species as thespeaker:dead, spirit animal.He who respondsto a 'you' spokenbya nonor human acceptstheconditionofbeingits'second person',and when assumingin his turnthe positionof 'I' does so already a non-human.The canonicalform as of thesesupernatural encounters, then,consistsin suddenlyfinding thatthe out otheris 'human',thatis,thatitis the human,which automatically dehumanizes and alienatesthe interlocutor transforms into a preyobject,thatis, an and him animal. Only shamans,multinatural and office, always beingsby definition are the capableoftransiting variousperspectives, callingand beingcalled 'you' bythe animal subjectivitiesand spiritswithout losing their condition as human subjects.2' I would conclude byobserving Amerindian that perspectivism a vanishing has point,as it were,where the differences betweenpointsof view are at the same time annulled and exacerbated: which thus takeson the character an myth, of absolutediscourse.In myth, every speciesofbeingappearsto othersas itappears to itself(as human), while acting as if already showing its distinctive and definitive nature (as animal,plant or spirit).In a certainsense, all the beings which people mythology shamans,which indeed is explicitly are affirmed by some Amazoniancultures(Guss 1989: 52). Mythspeaksofa stateofbeingwhere bodies and names, souls and affects, the I and the Other interpenetrate, in submerged thesame pre-subjective pre-objective and milieu- a milieuwhose

484

EDUARDO

VIVEIROS DE CASTRO

end is precisely whatthe mythology out to tell. setsNOTES A shorterversion of this article was presented as a Munro Lecture at the Universityof Edinburghearlierthisyear.The articleis theresultof an extendeddialoguewithTania Stolze Lima, who, in parallelwith and synchronousto its earlierversion (published first Portuguese),has in written masterful a articleon perspectivism Jurunacosmology(Lima 1996). PeterGow (who, in togetherwith Elizabeth Ewart, translatedmost of the article into English), Aparecida Vilaca, Philippe Descola and Michael Houseman made invaluable suggestionsat various stages in the elaborationof the materials presenthere. Bruno Latour (1991) was an indirect I but crucialsource of inspiration. I After thisarticlehad reacheditspresentform, read an essayby FritzKrause (1931, mentionedbyBoelscher 1989: 212 n.10) which advancesideas strikingly similarto some developed here. I This notion of the body as a 'clothing'can be foundamongstthe Makuna (Arhem 1993), the Yagua (Chaumeil 1983: 125-7), the Piro (Gow, pers. comm.), the Trio (Riviere 1994) the Upper Xingu societies (Gregor 1977: 322). The notion is verylikelypan-American, havingconsiderable symbolicyield forexample in North-westCoast cosmologies (see Goldman 1975 and Boelscher a 1989), ifnot of much wider distribution, question I cannotconsiderhere. 2 For some examplessee amongstmanyothers: Weiss 1969: 158; 1972 (Campa); Baer 1994: 102, 119, 224; Renard-Casevitz 1991: 24-31 (Matsiguenga); Grenand 1980: 42 (Wayapi);Viveiros de Castro 1992a: 68 (Arawete);Osborn 1990: 151 (U'wa); Jara1996: 68-73 (Akuriyo). 3See for example, Saladin d'Anglure 1990; Fienup-Riordan 1994 (Eskimo); Nelson 1983; McDonnell 1984 (Koyukon,Kaska); Tanner 1979; Scott 1989; Brightman 1993 (Cree); Hallowell 1960 (Ojibwa); Goldman 1975 (Kwakiutl);Guedon 1984 (Tsimshian);Boelscher 1989 (Haida). See also Howell 1984; 1996; and Karim 1981,fortheChewong and Ma'Betisek of Malaysia; forSiberia, Hamayon 1990. See Arhem 1993; Crocker 1985; Hugh-Jones1996; Overing 1985; 1986; Vila?a 1992. of and 5Or, as we may add, the case of the Ojibwa, where the co-existenceof the systems totem for manido (Levi-Strauss1962a: 25-33) servedas a matrix the generaloppositionbetweentotemism and sacrifice withinthe framework (Levi-Strauss1962b: 295-302) and can be directly interpreted of a distinction betweentotemismand animism. 6 See Radcliffe-Brown 1952: 130-1, who, amongstother interesting arguments, distinguishes of species and naturalphenomena (which 'permitsnatureto be thoughtof processes personiftcation of as if it were a societyof persons,and so makes of it a social or moral order'), like those found of amongstthe Eskimos and Andaman Islanders,fromsystems classification naturalspecies, like of those found in Australiaand which compose a 'systemof social solidarities'between man and as nature- this obviously calls to mind Descola's distinctionof animism/totemism well as the of contrast manido/totem exploredby Levi-Strauss. I The uncomfortable tension inherentin such antinomiescan be gauged in Howell's article where the Chewong are describedas being both 'relativist' and (1996) on Chewong cosmology, I 'anthropocentric' a double mischaracterization,believe. 8 'Such is the foundation It of perspectivism. does not expressa dependencyon a predefined whateveraccedes to the point of view will be subject ...' (Deleuze 1988: subject; on the contrary, 27). 9 'Human beings see themselves such; the Moon, the snakes,thejaguars and the Mother of as Smallpox,however,see themas tapirsor peccaries,which theykill' (Baer 1994: 224). 10If salmon look to salmon as humans to humans- and thisis 'animism'- salmon do not look do human to humans (theylook likesalmon),and neither humansto salmon (theylook likespirits, or maybebears;see Guedon 1984: 141) - and thisis 'perspectivism'. Ultimately, then,animismand to thanDescola's model allows for. perspectivism may have a deeper relationship totemism 11The attribution human-likeconsciousness and intentionality say nothingof human of (to denominated bodily form and cultural habits) to non-human beings has been indifferently or 'anthropocentrism' 'anthropomorphism'. However, these two labels can be taken to denote radicallyopposed cosmological outlooks. Westernpopular evolutionismis veryanthropocentric, but not particularlyanthropomorphic. On the other hand, 'primitive animism' may be if not characterized anthropomorphic, it is definitely anthropocentric: sundryotherbeings as but


485

besides humans are 'human', thenwe humans are not a special lot. 12 'The point of view is located in thebody,saysLeibniz' (Deleuze 1988: 16). 13 The counterproof the singularity the spirit in our cosmologieslies in the factthatwhen of of it is to we try universalizeit,we are obliged- now thatsupernature out of bounds - to identify with the structure and functionof the brain.The spiritcan only be universal(natural) if it is (in) the body of unequivocal examples of spiritpossession in the complex of Amerindian 14 The rarity The classical shamanismmay derivefromthe prevalenceof the themeof bodilymetamorphosis. illuminatedfromthis problem of the religiousconversionof Amerindianscould also be further and angle; indigenous conceptions of 'acculturation'seem to focus more on the incorporation than on spiritual sex) rather embodimentof Westernbodily practices(food, clothing,interethnic assimilation (language,religionetc.). 15 The traditionalproblem of Western mainstreamepistemologyis how to connect and have to be made); theproblemin Amazonia universalize(individualsubstancesare given,relations is how to separate and particularize(relations are given, substances must be defined). See Brightman (1993: 177-85) and Fienup-Riordan(1994: 46-50) - both inspiredby Wagner's(1977) ideas about the 'innate'and the 'constructed' on thiscontrast. 16 In Amazonian cannibalism, of what is intendedis preciselythe incorporation the subjectin hyper-subjectivized, verymuch the same way as that aspect of the enemy (who is accordingly not as describedby Harrison [1993: 121] forMelanesian warfare), itsdesubjectivization is the case with game animals. See Viveirosde Castro 1992a: 290-3; 1996: 98-102; Fausto 1997. 17 PeterGow (pers. comm.) tellsme thatthe Piro conceive of the act of putting on clothesas an animatingof clothes. See also Goldman (1975: 183) on Kwakiutl masks: 'Masks get "excited" duringWinterdances'. a but also refers theskilland to 18 "'Clothing" in thissense does not mean merely body covering to out certaintasks'(Rivierein Koelewijn 1987: 306). ability carry 19Religions based on the cult of the ancestorsseem to postulatethe inverse:spiritualidentity of goes beyondthebodilybarrier death,the livingand thedead are similarin so faras theymanifest and the same spirit.We would accordingly have superhumanancestrality spiritualpossession on on one side, animalizationof the dead and bodilymetamorphosis the other. 20 This would be the truesignificance the 'deceptiveness appearances'theme:appearances of of deceive because one is nevercertainwhose point of view is dominant,thatis, which world is in injunctionnot of withotherbeings.The similarity thisidea to thefamiliar force when one interacts appearance. to 'trust just anotherdeceitful is, yoursenses' ofWesternepistemologies I fear, 21 As we have remarked, good partof shamanistic animals, work consistsin de-subjectivizing a thatis in transforming them intopure,naturalbodies capable of being consumed withoutdanger. theminto In contrast, the whatdefinesspirits precisely factthattheyare inedible;thistransforms is eaterspar excellence, into anthropophagousbeings. In this way, it is common for the great i.e. and it is understandable manifest themselves, formsin which spirits to predators be the preferred thatspirits and predatoranimals should see us as thatgame animals should see humans as spirits, game animals and thatanimals takento be inedible should be assimilatedto spirits(Viveirosde Castro 1978). The scales of edibility indigenousAmazonia (Hugh-Jones1996) should therefore of include spirits theirnegativepole. at REFERENCES en ecologia alternativa el tr6pico humedo Arhem,K. 1993. Ecosofia makuna. In La selvahumanizada: Fondo FEN colombiano (ed.) F. Correa. Bogota': Instituto Colombiano de Antropologifa, Colombia, Fondo EditorialCEREC. Amazon. In 1996. The cosmic food web: human-naturerelatednessin the northwest (eds) anthropological perspectives P Descola & G. Palsson. London: Routledge. Nature society: and Quito: Abya-Yala. de y Baer,G. 1994. Cosmologfashamanismo losMatsiguenga. Paris: de Benveniste, 1966a. La naturedes pronoms.In Problemes linguistiquege'ne'rale. Gallimard. E. Paris: 1996b. De la subjectivitedans le langage. In Problmes de linguistique ge'ne'rale. Gallimard. discourse. Vancouver:Univ. of British Haida social mythical and within: Boelscher,M. 1989. Thecurtain Columbia Press. Univ. of California R. relationships. Berkeley: prey: Brightman, 1993. Grateful RockCreehuman-animal

486


Press. e Sao Carneiroda Cunha, M.M. 1978. Os mortosos outros. Paulo: Hucitec. Paris:Ecole le chez du Chaumeil,J.-P 1983. Voir, savoir, pouvoir: chamanisme lesYagua nord-est pe'ruvien. des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales. and natural Tucson: Univ. of cosmology, symbolism, shamanism. Crocker, J.C. 1985. Vital souls:Bororo Arizona Press. Paris:Minuit. Deleuze, G. 1988. Le pli: Leibnizetle baroque. Paris:Maison des etpraxis dansl'e'cologie Achuar. des domestique: symbolisme Descola, P 1986. La nature Sciences de i'Homme. In society (ed.) A. Kuper. 1992. Societies of natureand the natureof society. Conceptualizing London: Routledge. en a chasse,alliance et familiarisation Erikson,P 1984. De l'apprivoisement l'approvisionnement: Amazonie amerindienne. Techn. Cult.9,105-40. entreos Parakandda Amaz6nia oriental. Fausto, C. 1997. A dialeticada predacdoe familiarizacdo Thesis, Museu Nacional, Univ. of Rio de Janeiro. and passages:rule and ritualin Yup'ikEskimooral tradition. Fienup-Riordan,A. 1994. Boundaries Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press. an New York:WileytoKwakiutl thought. religious Goldman, I. 1975. The mouth heaven: introduction of Interscience. Gow, P 1989. The perversechild: desire in a nativeAmazonian subsistenceeconomy.Man (N.S.) 24, 567-82. and in Amazonia.Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1991. Of mixed blood: kinship history Peruvian Chicago: Univ. of Gregor,T. 1977. Mehinaku:thedramaofdailylIfein a BrazilianIndian village. Chicago Press. de des du d l'etude l'univers waydpi: ethno-e'cologieIndiens Haut-Oyapock Grenand,P 1980. Introduction (GuyaneFran,aise). Paris: SELAF/CNRS. In to Guedon, M.-F. 1984. An introduction the Tsimshianworld view and its practitioners. The the (ed.) M. Seguin. Vancouver: Univ. of British Tsimshian: images thepast,viewsfor present of Columbia Press. and in American rainforest. Berkeley: symbol narrative theSouth Guss, D. 1989. To weaveand tosing:art, Univ. of CaliforniaPress. and world view.In Culture history: in in essays honor behavior, Hallowell, A.I. 1960. Ojibwa ontology, ofPaul Radin (ed.) S. Diamond. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. du d d'unethe'orie chamanisme Nanterre:Societe sibe'rien. Hamayon, R. 1990. La chasse l'dme:esquisse d'Ethnologie. and sefin Melanesia. Manchester:Univ. Press. ritual the Harrison,S. 1993. The maskofwar:violence, and Chewong peninsular of Malaysia.Oxford: Univ. Press. Howell, S. 1984. Society cosmos: 1996. Nature in culture or culture in nature? Chewong ideas of 'humans' and other anthropological perspectives P Descola & G. Palsson. London: (eds) species. In Natureand society: Routledge. Hugh-Jones,S. 1996. Bonnes raisons ou mauvaise conscience? De l'ambivalence de certains Amazoniens enversla consommationde viande. Terrain 123-48. 26, in Ingold, T. 1991. Becoming persons:consciousnessand sociality human evolution.Cult.Dyn. 4, 355-78. In humanity, culture encyclopediaanthropology: of 1994. Humanity and animality. Companion andsociallife (ed.) T. Ingold. London: Routledge. In 1996. Hunting and gathering ways of perceiving environment. Redefining as the nature: culture domestication R.F. Ellen & K Fukui. London: Berg. and (eds) ecology, del entre Akuriyo Surinam. los de Quito: Abya-Yala. y Jara,F. 1996. El camino Kumu: ecologia ritual London: AthlonePress. concepts living of things. Karim,W-J. 1982. Ma'betisek to Peru. Prospect Heights: Kensinger,K. 1995. How realpeopleought live:theCashinahuaofeastern WavelandPress. Indians Surinam. Dordrecht:Foris. of of Koelewijn, C. with P Riviere 1987. Oral literaturetheTrio das Krause, F. 1931. Maske und Ahnenfigur: Motiv der Hille und das Prinzip der Form. Ethnol. Stud. 1, 344-64. modernes. Paris:EditionsLa Decouverte. Latour,B. 1991. Noun n'avonsjamaiste' C. Paris: PressesUniversitaires France. de aujourd'hui. JAvi-Strauss, 1962a. Le tot6misme 1962b.La pense'e Paris: Plon. sauvage.


487

In structurale Paris: Plon. deux. 1973 [1952]. Race et histoire. hisAnthropologie Paris: Plon. 1985. La potierejalouse. of Thesis, Museu Nacional, University Rio Lima, T.S. 1995. A partedo cauim: etnografiajuruna. de Janeiro. em sobre o perspectivismo uma cosmologia tupi. 1996. 0 dois e seu multiplo:reflex6es Mana 2:2, 21-47. McCallum, C. 1996. The body that knows: from Cashinahua epistemology to a medical of Q. anthropology lowland South America.Med.Anthrop. 10:3, 1-26. on turmoil:centering theKaska symbol and McDonnell, R. 1984. Symbolicorientations systematic of dene.CanadjAnthrop.4, 39-56. vital substance,and knowledge Mentore, G. 1993. Temperingthe social self: body adornment, Anthrop. 22-34. 9, among theWaiwai.J.Archaeol. to Raven.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Nelson, R. 1983. Makeprayers the animals: In Osborn, A. 1990. Eat and be eaten: animals in U'wa (Tunebo) oral tradition. Signifying world in human (ed.) R. Willis. London: Unwin Hyman. meaning thenatural Overing,J. 1985. There is no end of evil: the guiltyinnocentsand their falliblegod. In The ofevil anthropology (ed.) D. Parkin.London: Basil Blackwell. Soc. deathand dominationin a 'non-violent'society.J. Amer. 1986. Images of cannibalism, 72, 133-56. Pollock, D. 1985. Personhood and illnessamong the Culina of westernBrazil. Thesis, University of Rochester. andfunction A.R. 1952 [1929]. The sociologicaltheoryof totemism.In Structure Radcliffe-Brown, London: Routledge& Kegan Paul. inprimitive society. Man G. Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1976. Cosmology as ecological analysis:a view fromthe rain forest. (N.S.) 12, 307-18. and Amazon. In Animalmyths metaphors 1985. Tapiravoidance in the Colombian northwest America in South (ed.) G. Urton. Salt Lake City: Univ. of Utah Press. de Paris: une F.-M. 1991. Le banquet masque': mythologiel'e'tranger. Lierre& Coudrier. Renard-Casevitz, Riviere,P. 1994. WYSINWYIG in Amazonia.JASO 25, 255-62. space and social Saladin d'Anglure,B. 1990. Nanook, super-male;the polar bear in the imaginary world animals: meaning thenatural in human timeof the Inuit of the Canadian Arctic.In Signifying (ed.) R. Willis.London: Unwin Hyman. of Schwartzman, 1988. The Panara of theXingu National park.Thesis, University Chicago. S. Scott, C. 1989. Knowledge construction among the Cree hunters: metaphors and literal 75, Soc. understanding.J. Ame'r. 193-208. Seeger,A. 1980. Corporacdo e corporalidade:ideologia de concepcdo e descendencia. In his Os e tndios nos.Rio de Janeiro:Campus. Cree of ideology modeofproduction theMistassini and homeanimals:religious Tanner,A. 1979. Bringing hunters. StJohn's: Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland. langageet croyancedans la pensee achuar.L'Homme stupefiants: Taylor, A.-C. 1993a. Des fant6mes 126-8, 33/2-4,429-47. identity, mourningand memoryamong theJivaro.Man 1993b. Rememberingto forget: (N.S.) 28, 653-78. G. Townsley, 1993. Song paths:theways and means ofYaminahuashamanicknowledge.L'Homme 126-8,33:2-4, 449-68. In T. twinsare birds':playof tropesas operationalstructure. Beyond Turner, 1991. 'We are parrots, the in Univ. Press. (ed.) of metaphor: theory tropes anthropology J. Fernandez.Stanford: among the and 1995. Social body and embodied subject:bodiliness,subjectivity, sociality 10, Kayapo. Cult.Anthrop. 143-70. comogente:formas do canibalismo Wari'(Pakaa-Nova).Rio de Janeiro:Editora Vilaca,A. 1992. Comendo da UFRJ. Viveirosde Castro,E. 1978. Alguns aspectosdo pensamentoyawalpiti(AltoXingu): classificac6es e transformac6es. Mus. nac.26, 1-41. Bol. 1979. A fabricacdo corpo na sociedade xinguana.Bol. Mus. nac.32, 2-19. do society. Chicago: in 1992a. Fromtheenemy's and point view:humanity divinity an Amazonian of Univ. of Chicago Press. do 1992b.Apresentacdo to A. Vilaca. In Comendo como gente:formas canibalismo Wari'Rio de Janeiro:Editoralda UFRJ.

488


1993. Alguns aspectos da afinidadeno dravidianatoamaz6nico. In Amaz6nia:etnologia e hist6ria indigena (eds) E. Viveirosde Castro & M. Carneiro da Cunha. Sao Paulo: Nucleo de Historia Indigenae do Indigenismo(USP/FAPESP). 1996. Le meurtrier son double chez les Arawete:un exemple de fusion rituelle.Syst. et Pens.AfrNoire14, 77-104 of Wagner,R. 1977. Scientificand indigenousPapuan conceptualizations the innate: a semiotic In and in rural critiqueof the ecological perspective. Subsistence survival: ecology the Pacfic(eds) T. Bayliss-Smith R.G. Feachem. London: Academic Press. & Weiss, G. 1969. The cosmology of the Campa Indians of eastern Peru. Thesis, Universityof Michigan. 1972. Campa cosmology. Ethnology 157-72. 11,

Deiis cosmologique perspectivisme et amerindienRe'sume' du Cet article discute la signification 'perspectivisme' am6rindien,c'est-a-direles idees qui concernentla facondont les humains,les animauxet les espritsse percoivent eux-memeset se percoivent les uns les autres dans les cosmologies amerindiennes.Ces idees suggerentla les sur possibilitede redefinir categories classiques de 'nature','culture'et 'supernature' la base des concepts de perspectiveou de point de vue. Larticle soutientplus particulierement que l'antinomieentredeux caracterisations la pensee indigene- d'une part l"ethnocentrisme' de selon lequel les attributs l'humaniteseraientrefusesaux humains appartenant d'autres a de groupes,et d'autrepartl"animisme',qui appliquerait qualites humainespar extensiona des ces entreles a etresappartenant d'autresespeces - peut etreresolue si l'on considerela diff6rence et aspectsspirituels corporelsdes etres. King'sCollege, Cambridge CB2 1ST

Documents

Viviero de Castro 1998 Cosmological Deixis and ian Perspectivism