Situation’ and Ethnic Movements

Ethnic Movements

Notes

on

post-Malinowskian

fieldwork

1

Bruce

Albert

Institut

_{Français de}

Recherche

_{Scientifique pour le Développement en}

Coopération

(Orstom)

Abstract

▪ This paper

analyses

the

_changes

induced in the

_political,

ethical and

epistemological

parameters of classical

_{anthropological}

fieldwork

_by

the world-wide emergence of

indigenous political

movements and related _support NGOs.

It looks first at the links between _post-war

_{development policies}

and the rise of these

_indigenous

and

_{indigenist organizations.}

It then introduces a

_general

dis-cussion about the

_{relationships}

between

_{ethno-political struggles,}

anthropologi-cal

_{advocacy, ethnographic}

research and

_{’participant}

observation’. It

_finally

examines the conditions of intellectual

_independence

of an

_engaged

anthro-pology

and the

_possible

heuristic

_{potentialities}

of its new field

_perspective

of

’observant

_{participation’.}

Keywords

▪ anthropological advocacy ▪ anthropological

fieldwork ▪

ethno-politi-cal movements ▪

_indigenous

_{people ▪}

_participant

observation ▪ social

anthro-pology

The main source for the

_following

_{reflections is my}

_experience

of a

long-term

_{anthropological}

research and

_advocacy

work with the Yanomami Indians in the Brazilian Amazon

_(1975-95).

Here,

however,

I do not intend

to enter into the details of this fieldwork

_experience,2

but to extract from it some

_general

ethical and

_political

_parameters

which seem to me to be

exemplary

of current

_{anthropological}

fieldwork with

_peoples

who were once the

_{major ethnographic}

reference of the ’invention of

_primitive

society’ (Kuper,

1988).

Traditional

fieldwork,

as canonized

_by

Malinowski in the

_preface

to

Argonauts of the

Western

_Pacific

(Malinowski, 1978;

see

Stocking,

1983; Kilani,

1990),

is,

as we all

_know,

_dying

out. Not because

_indigenous

_peoples

are

doomed to

_extinction,

as Malinowski wrote - a

_recurring

blind

_prophecy

since -

but,

on the

_contrary,

because

_they

are

_{increasingly becoming}

sub-jects

of their own

_history

and readers of their own

_{ethnographers}

(Geertz,

1988: 129-49).

Yet the

_{founding mythology}

of Malinowskian fieldwork

empirical

challenges

to its basic formula are

_generally

buried in a

cor-poratist

discourse about the

_closing

of classical research fields. This

nostal-gia

makes it sound as if

_ethnographic

research

_presumed

a transcendental

right

to cultural

_{objectification,}

and this

_right

was

_{suddenly being}

_put

into

question by ’anthropological

peoples’

losing

their

_{authenticity -}

and even worse their

_{docility - by unduly}

_entering

into occidental

_{(post) modernity.}

But,

what is

_{vanishing today}

are not the

_peoples

and the societies who

were the one-time

_{privileged objects}

of ’tribal

_{ethnography’}

_{(Leach, 1989)}

-

although

many are still

_dramatically

threatened. It is not even the

accessi-bility

to traditional field sites. What is

_{increasingly disappearing}

are the

epistemological

illusions on which classical

_anthropology

was based. That

is, first,

the

_empirical

evidence of the boundedness of its

_{object -}

’tra-ditional

_society’

as a clear-cut social and cultural isolate -

_{and, second,}

the

scientific

_transparency

of its

_{methodology - participant}

observation as a

simple

device for

_{recording pre-existing}

social data. The

_{disappearance}

of these two

_founding

illusions will be the

_subject

of this short note, which will

be divided into two

_parts.

I shall start

_{by looking}

at how the _emergence of ethnic movements has transformed the

_{’ethnographic situation’;3}

then I shall examine the intellectual

_implications

and

_perspectives

created for the

discipline by

this transformation.

Admittedly,

Africanist

_{anthropologists}

and

_sociologists

will

_hardly

find this

_problematic

to be

_something

new. What may be

_{interestingly}

_new,

however,

is to find this situation now

_arising

in the context of Amazonian

anthropology,

for Lowland South American

_anthropology

underwent a

sub-stantial transformation of its field research in the 1970s and 1980s. It

broad-ened,

in

_particular,

the historical and

_sociological

contexts of its

studies,

and widened its traditional culturalist concerns to embrace social and

politi-cal

_changes

_(Descola

and

_Taylor,

_1993).

In

fact,

this transformation

accompanied deep

changes

going

on in Amerindian societies

which,

at that

time,

were

_{gradually beginning}

to constitute themselves as

_{political subjects}

vis-a-vis the nation-states

_ruling

over and

_{circumscribing}

them.4

This process

of ’internal decolonization’ offered South Americanism new

_perspectives

for

_redefining

its

field,

probably

as

_important

as those that

_opened

_up for

Africanism in the decolonization

_period

of the 1950s and 1960s.

Ethnicity

and

_development

This _process,

_however,

is

_hardly

limited to South

America.5

Worldwide,

indigenous

societies

_represent

_{approximately}

300 million

_{people living}

in 70 countries

_{(IWGIA, 1996).}

_{Their emergence} on the

_political

scene

_during

Multilateral

_{organizations}

had a decisive role in

_this,

both because _many

indigenous

resistance movements arose in reaction to their

_policies

_(World

Bank and

_{regional Development}

Banks),

and because of the international

recognition they

were then forced to accord to these movements

_(United

Nations

_agencies,

Inter American

_System,

_{European Union).7}

The United

Nations,

through

the

ILO,

_published

in 1953 a voluminous

report

on the ’economic

_{marginality’}

of

_{indigenous peoples.}

This

_report

was followed

_by

the

1957

international convention ’on the

_protection

and

integration

of

_indigenous,

tribal or semitribal

populations

in

_independent

countries’

_(Convention

_107),

a text written in a

_{highly paternalistic}

and assimilationist

_style

which

_prevailed

until

1989.8 Then,

_during

the three

intervening

decades,

these

_{’marginal’}

societies

_officially

became the

_object

of ’economic

_{development’}

schemes

_targeting

either the

_populations

them-selves or, more

_frequently,

their lands and natural resources.

_By

the late

1960s,

resistance to these

_operations

led

_{progressively}

to the rise of new

forms of

_{ethnicity-based political organization}

and

_empowerment

strat-egies, effectively relayed

in the decades to come

_by

the

_growing

influence

of NGOs on the international

_development

scene

(Cernea, 1988).

From the late 1960s and

_throughout

the

1970s,

the number of

indigen-ous

_{organizations}

_grew

_{substantially,}

and in

1975,

the creation of the World

Council of

_{Indigenous Peoples}

marked the

_beginning

of their interaction

at a

_global

level.9

_They

also

_{began receiving}

the

_backing

of several

special-ized NGOs founded in

_Europe

and the United States at this

time.l°

Thus,

issues

_concerning

_{indigenous peoples began}

to be

_increasingly

discussed

_by

international

_{organizations:}

a

_{special study}

on discrimination

_against

’indigenous populations’

was authorized

_by

the UN Economic and Social

Council in

1972

and the first NGO conference on the

_topic

was held in 1977

at the United Nations in

Geneva.ll

This movement for the

_recognition

of the

_rights

of

_{indigenous peoples}

started out with reference to the

_political

notion of internal

colonialism

It then moved on to

_analyse

the

_relationship

between native

lands,

econ-omic resources and the international

_system

of

development.

This

_stage

was

marked

_by

two international

_meetings

in 1981: the ’NGO Conference on

Indigenous Peoples

and the Earth’

(United

Nations,

Geneva)

and the ’Con-ference on Ethnocide and

_{Ethnodevelopment’}

(UNESCO,

San

_jos6

de Costa

_Rica).

_Finally,

the

_dynamism

of conservationist NGOs in the late 1980s

helped

to reinforce the movement

_through

the

_{widespread -}

and often

stereotyped -

invocation of

_indigenous

_superiority

in

_{ecological knowledge}

and natural resources

_management

_(Ellen,

_{1986; Redford,}

_1991).

This

_ecological

boom and the ’sustainable

_{development’}

rhetoric that

subsequently

invaded multilateral

_{organizations}

has led

_{indigenous peoples}

to seek

_legitimation

of their territorial and cultural claims in terms of an

’ecological ethnicity’

which combines their own

_cosmological

references

1997b).

This

_{politico-symbolic}

_synthesis

has earned them both

_negotiating

power and a

_political

audience far

_surpassing

anything

_they

might

have

obtained ten _years before. Two international conferences held in ₁₉₉₂

rep-resent the

_{high points}

of this

_phase:

the ’International Conference on

Indigenous Peoples

of the

_Tropical

Forest’

_{(Penang, Malaysia)}

and the

’Indigenous Peoples

World Conference on the

_Earth,

Environment and

Development’

during

the ’Earth Summit’

_(UNCED,

Rio

_{de Janeiro,}

Brazil).

The World Bank’s

_changing

attitude towards the

_question

of

indigen-ous

people perfectly

sums _up the evolution of this issue in the

develop-mentalist

_ideology

that

_prevailed

from the 1970s to the 1990s: in

1974,

the World Bank ’discovered’ the

_problem

of native land

_rights

when the tribal

peoples

of the Central Cordillera of Luzon

_{(Philippines)}

and their allies

(NGOs

and

_political

_movements)

_{successfully stopped}

it from

_financing

a

giant hydroelectric project

on the Chico River

(Drucker, 1988).

It then came out with a first

_policy

directive

_{concerning indigenous peoples}

in 1982 and with a revised

_Operational

Directive in

1991.13

In

_1993,

for the United

Nations International Year of

_{Indigenous Peoples,}

the Bank

_organized

an

international conference on ’Traditional

_Knowledge

and Sustainable

Development’. 14

These processes - local

indigenous

empowerment

and the

politico-symbolic globalization

of

_{ethnicity -}

define the context in which the

con-ditions and stakes of

_{anthropological}

research on the referent societies of

classical

_ethnography

are

being

drawn

today.

This

dynamic

confronts most

anthropologists

in their research and many are

_directly

involved

_through

their work with

_{indigenous organizations}

and

_supporting

NGOs.

Ethnic

movements and

_{anthropological advocacy}

Needless to _say, this

_changing

situation has wreaked a fair amount of havoc

on the canonical

_precepts

of

_{ethnographic ’participant}

observation’,

the

master chart

_(and

_trope)

of modern

_{anthropology.}

Since the

1970s,

indigenous

communities and

_{organizations}

have been

_openly

_questioning

the _purpose and _consequences of

_{anthropological study}

in relation to their

own

_projects

for self-determination. Under these

circumstances,

anthro-pologists

find themselves faced with two ethical and

_political

_obligations

which were eluded

_by

classical

_ethnography,

but are

_{unquestionable}

nowa-days :

on the one

_hand,

_being

accountable in their work to

_people

who were

traditionally only

the

_{’objects’}

of their

studies;

on the

other,

_assuming

the

responsibility

their

_knowledge

entails for these

_peoples’

resistance

strat-egies

vis-a-vis the dominant nation-states’

_{discriminatory}

and

_despoiling

policies.

The demand comes both from

_indigenous

communities and

_{organizations,}

and from NGOs

_engaged

in human

_rights,

local

_development,

or

indigen-ous

_advocacy.

This sort of

_{’applied’}

_{anthropological}

work is

_increasingly

recognized

in its own

right

as

_{’anthropological advocacy’}

_(see

_Paine,

_1985;

Wright,

1988).

The

_expression

covers initiatives which are

_generally

associ-ated with one of five

_key

sectors:

_{land, health,}

_law,

education and social economy. Activities in each of these areas _may be _very

_diverse,

more

empiri-cal and technical than

_{anthropological}

as

_such,

but

_they

are

_closely

con-nected with

_knowledge

and

_{expertise gained through ethnographic}

research

_experience.

The

_following,

for

_example,

are based on common

anthropological

work in Brazil:

1. mediation activities technical

_consultancy

for

_indigenous

leaders and

organiza-tions ;

_expertise

for

_legal

causes

_(land

and human

_rights);

information work

. linked to NGO

advocacy campaigning;

2. documentation activities-

_analysis

of documents related to

_{regional development}

policies

and economic ventures that would affect native lands and

_rights;

cover-ing legislation

on

_indigenous

issues and

_monitoring

the

_{politico-economic}

lobbies involved in

_drawing

_{up this}

_legislation;

3. action-oriented research:

_{conception, setting}

_{up and evaluation of technical aid}

projects

(health,

education, environment, social

_economy);

studies for

_legal

or

administrative purposes

(land

conflicts and human

_rights);

4. didactic

_{ethnography: production}

of technical manuals and

_pedagogical

material for use in

_{training indigenous}

_and/or

_{non-indigenous}

health workers and school teachers;

_writing

up

’lay’

or

_{simplified ethnographic}

texts for

_legal

or

NGO use.

It is obvious that such activities cannot be considered to be

anthropo-logical

research

_{strictly speaking,}

and

_they

neither _presume nor intend to

replace

it,

but

_{they certainly}

set _up a current context for the work of

ethno-graphic

research in the field

_{today, given}

the

_{increasing integration}

of ethnic movements and NGO intervention into local social and

_political

landscapes.

Anthropologists

work on these activities while

_attending

to their own

research

_agenda

_and,

_very

_often,

the latter is

_{only accepted}

and understood

within the context of the former. This kind of

_arrangement

_increasingly

comes about as a result of formal

_negotiations

with

_{representatives}

of the host communities or of local or

_regional

_{indigenous organizations.}

Such

negotiations, comparable,

for

_example,

to those in which

_{anthropologists}

working

in France are involved

_nowadays

_{(Althabe, 1993),}

were not deemed necessary before with ’exotic’

people

who,

in various

_degrees,

were forced

to

_accept

the _presence of researchers

_by

the ’colonial situations’ in which

they

were inserted

_(Leclerc,

1979:

_117-62).

In this context, the social

_engagement

of the

_ethnographer

can no

longer

be seen as a

_{personal political}

or ethical

choice,

_optional

and

_foreign

element of the

_{ethnographic relationship.}

The

_{anthropologist’s}

’obser-vation’ is no

_{longer merely ’participant’;}

his social

_{’participation’}

has

become both the condition and the framework of his field

research. 15

This situation

_shows,

in contrast, the extent to which the

_ideology

of

ethno-graphic neutrality depends

on

_dodging

the

_relationship

of domination

which makes

_possible

the

_{anthropologist’s}

intrusion - whether forced or

bought.

The

_parameters

of traditional fieldwork

_being

thus

transformed,

it is

no

_{longer possible}

to

_forget

or

_ignore

the fact that

anthropological

obser-vation is inscribed in a historical and

political

context in which the observed

society

is

_directly

or

_indirectly

submitted to the observer’s

_society.

Omission and

_ambiguity

are even more unthinkable now that the actors of this interethnic social field

_{generally require}

of the

_{anthropologist}

a _very

explicit

ethical and

_{political position. Combining}

_ethnographic

research with

_advocacy

work has thus become the basic fieldwork situation for _many

anthropologists

in countries where

_{indigenous people}

have

_emerged

as

important

political

actors, as in Australia

_{(AIAS, 1986),}

Brazil

_{(Ramos, 1990)}

or Canada

(Dyck

and

Waldran,

1993).

For French

anthropologists

the case

of the Kanak situation in New Caledonia is

_exemplary

_{(Bensa, 1995).}

These new

_aspects

of fieldwork _pose two

_types

of

_problems

for

anthropological

research:

first,

_concerning

the maintenance of its

inde-pendence

in the face of new kinds of ’social demand’ which

_imply

certain

intellectual

_{restrictions; and, second,}

_concerning

the heuristic

potentiali-ties for an

_{ethnographic relationship}

no

_longer

based on

_political

subjec-tion and

_{positivistic naivety.}

I shall now examine these two issues.

z

’Social demand’ and

_independence

of criticism

As with _any action-oriented

research,

whether

_directly

commissioned or

simply

induced

_by

the

_{representatives}

of a certain ’social

demand’,

_applied

anthropology

with

_indigenous

_peoples

raises the

_problem

of the researcher’s intellectual

_autonomy.

_Indigenous

communities or

organiz-ations and their

leaders,

as well as

_supporting

NGOs,

_always

_hope

that the

anthropologist’s

work

_they

commissioned or

encouraged

will lead to a

legit-imation of their own cultural and

_political

_empowerment

_{project. Though}

this kind of

_expectation

_may

_certainly

elicit more

_sympathy

than

others,

it

is nonetheless a social construct

_which,

as

_such,

_{is open} to

_{anthropological}

analysis

and criticism.

.

Today

the economic

_{(forestry, mining}

and _energy

_resources),

geo-political

(border conflicts,

civil _wars, international

_migrations)

and

ecolog-ical

_{(biodiversity}

conservation,

_protection

zones, intellectual

_property

rights)

interests at stake in concerns where

_indigenous

_peoples

are involved

recognition

and

_controlling

their own

_development

are

_goals

which

increasingly depend

on these

_{peoples’ legitimation}

as collective

_subjects

in the international media-dominated

_political

arena. The means and

_price

for this

_legitimation

is to

_{self-objectify}

and

_negotiate

their otherness as

emblematic

_{’indigenous}

culture’. This is

_generally

done

_through

an

eth-nicity-based political

discourse which borrows a

_great

deal from the official

rhetoric of state

_{’indigenism’}

and from the

_ideological

concerns

(commu-nitarism, culturalism,

ecologism)

of the

_indigenous

_peoples’

non-govern-mental

_allies,

_e.g. in the Brazilian

_Amazon,

the

_progressive

branch of the Catholic Church and the NGOs

_(Albert,

_1997b).

Of course,

_indigenous

leaders or

spokespersons play a key

role in these

_{self-objectification}

dynam-ics which resemble very much the

symbolic

politics

of _group construction

- the ’classification

struggle’ - classically analysed by

Bourdieu

_{( 1982, 1987).}

The

_{self-representation}

formulae

_{produced by}

_{this process of ’mimetic} resistance’

_(Auge,

₁₉₈₉₎

become

_highly

effective

_political

instruments on

the

_postmodern

scene of

_{globalization}

and

_{multi-ethnicity}

where

identity-based

_struggles

have over-run traditional social movements and

_ideological

differences.

_They

serve as

_catalysts

for

_far-reaching

transnational mobiliza-tions orchestrated

_{by non-governmental}

actors, and

_help

to

_upset

local

bal-ances of _power which have

_always

been unfavourable to the interests of

indigenous

peoples.

In this

_global

’culturalist’

_political

_environment,

_ethnographic

dis-course has become a

_strategic

tool - a

_symbolic

mirror

_(in

_identity

recon-struction)

and a means of

_{legitimation (by scholarly}

_{recognition).17}

As

anthropologists

get

more involved with

_indigenous

_movements,

_they

pro-gressively

slide _away from their external

_{objectifying (ethnographing)}

posi-tion to find themselves

_{directly implicated}

in the _process of cultural

self-objectification going

on in the societies with which

_they

work.

_They

are

given

a role of intercultural

adviser,

and are thus led to

_contribute,

_explicitly

or not, to the

_production

of the new cultural

_identity

and

_{ethno-political}

discourse

_through

which

_indigenous

leaders

_legitimate

their cause on the

international

_political

scene and in the mass

media,

a

_strategy

for their

peoples

to

_gain

access to the

_{decision-making}

_process in

_{public policy,}

to

public

facilities

_(health,

_education,

_justice),

and to NGO

_campaigning

and financial

resources. 18

Given that the aim of this _process of

_ethnogenesis

is the

_respect

of

minority

human

_rights

and

self-determination,

many

anthropologists

are

inclined to

_get

involved in the

_{politico-symbolic}

maieutics that

_underpin

it.

But,

whatever the

_{sympathy they}

_may have for their hosts’

_struggles,

it does

not

_imply

an

_agreement

to limit the exercise of

_anthropology

to a mere

apologetic reproduction

of their ethnic

discourse,

which would lead to a

complete

renunciation of _any

_{scholarly enterprise.}

In order to

_get

around this

_apparent

_{incompatibility}

between

_solidarity

and

research,

engaged

political

and

_symbolic

demand towards

_anthropology

(discourses

and

con-veyers, stakes and

effects)

as new

_objects

of their

_ethnography.

On the other

hand,

constructing

a

_{sociological object}

out of the overall

context of their involvement with ethnic movements and NGO

_advocacy

work

_{places anthropologists}

in an awkward

_position

vis-a-vis those with whom

they sympathize.

The

_ensuing

debates,

_being

felt as ’in-house’

_drama,

are

much more uncomfortable than the usual conflicts that arise between researchers and the traditional commissioners of

_{applied anthropology}

(public

institutions or

_{private companies).}

This is the case, for

_example,

with

debates over certain blind

_spots

in

_{non-governmental policies}

towards

indigenous people.

I am

_thinking,

in

_particular,

of the

_questionable

use of

stereotypical

and

_{exoticizing imagery}

(the

_ecological

and/or

_{New Age}

noble

savage)

to which certain NGOs link the

_recognition

of

_indigenous

_peoples’

rights

in order to

_guarantee

their own

_legitimacy

and boost their

fund-raising

activities. I am also

_thinking

of their

_persistent

social blindness towards the traditional

_systems

of

_dependence

and

_patronage

_(mission

or

state-bound)

that their field

_projects

tend _very often to

_reproduce.

But,

in

_fact,

the

_’working

uneasiness’ that _goes with an

_ethnography

of

’observant

_{participation’}

and critical

_solidarity

is what makes this sort of

engaged anthropology particularly interesting.

Under such

_{circumstances,}

anthropological

research is situated at the crossroads between an ethics of

responsibility

which links it to relativism

_(care

for the

_local),

and an ethics

of truth which turns it towards universalism

_(concern

for the

_global).

This articulation between values and

_knowledge

_{thus makes way for} a

’relativis-tic universalism’

(CaiII6, 1993)

or a ’universalism &dquo;as one

_{goes&dquo;’}

(’universal-isme de

_parcours’;

_Todorov,

₁₉₈₉₎

_which,

in _my

_opinion,

is what

_gives

anthropology

its true

_quality

as a critical humanism.

Heuristic

outcomes of

_{anthropological advocacy}

This

_shifting

of the

_original

_parameters

of Malinowskian fieldwork _opens

up a new outlook for

_{ethnographic scrutiny,}

and this

_change

of

_perspective

is

_certainly

rich in heuristic

_potential

for

_{anthropology.}

First of

_all,

in terms

of thematics: the social and

_{symbolic dynamics}

at the heart of which the

anthropologist

works

_provide

_many new research areas

_(beginning,

as we

have seen, with the context of the

_{anthropologist’s}

own involvement with ethnic movements and

_supporting

_NGOs).

I am

_thinking,

for

_example,

of the

_political

_{mobilizations,}

social

_{restructurings}

and cultural redefinitions

prompted by

government

or NGO intervention in the name of

(sustain-able)

_development.

To that I would add the social and

_symbolic

anthropology

of the initiatives and

_ideologies

of

_{non-governmental}

’indi-genism’.

But the heuristic contribution of this

_{post-Malinowskian}

fieldwork situ-ation also concerns the _very

_background

of

_object

construction in classical

social

_{anthropology.}

It

_underpins

a new

_ethnographic

_{gaze which induces} a

radical shift in the focus

_through

which the

_{configuration}

and the

tempo-rality

of the social _spaces are

_apprehended.

As a matter of

_fact,

_working

on

both sides of the interethnic

_boundary

and

_usually

on a

_long-term

basis,

this

kind of

_ethnography

can

_{only dissipate}

the

_founding

fictions of the cultural isolate and of the

_ethnographic

_present

as

_products

of an

_optical

illusion.

Under this new fieldwork

_{experience, indigenous}

societies are

simul-taneously

seen

_through

the double

_perspective

of cultural

_reproduction

and

of historical

_change:

on the one

hand,

_through

their work of

_{self-production}

and,

on the

other,

_through

the transformations induced

_by

their

_being

encroached _upon

_by

the nation-states. In this context, the

_{anthropological}

analysis

has to deal with a total social _space of interwoven networks and dis-courses,

_integrating

the local field of interethnic relations to the

_global

sphere

of relations between societies.

Moreover,

the time of

_observation,

abandoning

the

_{photograph-like monographic}

_fieldwork,

_{converges towards} the kinetic time of

_long-term

involvement.

Hence,

_{anthropological analysis}

also shifts its focus from the architecture of social units and

_symbolic

forms

to the historical and

_{political dynamic}

of their

_production

and

_{reproduction.}

The most

_interesting

_consequence of this

_opening

_up of the bound-aries of the classic

_ethnographic

_time-space

_{is, however,}

the subversion of

our

_theological

and

_reifying

notion of

_{’culture (s)’ (Viveiros}

de

Castro,

1993):

’culture’ fetishized as a ’belief

_system’

for which

_change

can

_only

mean

_{degeneration -}

as social

_{self-repudiation}

_{(’acculturation’),}

as

sym-bolic

_patch

_up

_{(’syncretism’)}

or as

_{opportunistic}

reconstruction

₍

‘ethnic-ity’) ;

’cultures’ textualized as

_systems

of essentialized differences

serving

a

politically

biased construction of otherness

_(Abu-Lughod,

_1991).

Such a vision of cultural identities as

_theological

monads haunted

_by

history’s

corrosive _process

_clearly

has little to do with what we are

_given

to

observe in the _way of

_{‘culture(s)’}

in

_ethnographic

fieldwork

_today.

_Rather,

we are confronted with _{processes of}

_symbolic

_{self-production, intricately}

wound _up with a

_generalized

invention of traditions and a

_global

inter-dependence

of discourses. This

_{neologistic intertextuality}

of cultural

iden-tity promises

to be a _very fertile

_ground

for an

_anthropology

of the

_present,

in

_indigenous

societies as well as in _any other

_{(Marcus, 1991).}

Notes

I

_{thank Jennifer}

Kaku

_(Survival

International

_France)

and Alcida Ramos

_(University

1 This _paper

_incorporates

and

_enlarges

on a certain number of

_points

_previously

developed

(Albert, 1995),

but from a different

_angle.

2 See Albert

(1988,

1992, 1993,

1997b)

for different _{aspects of my research} on

interethnic contact. On

_advocacy

work, see, for

example,

Albert

(1992)

on land

rights,

(1994)

on human

_rights,

and

(1997a)

on health care.

3 Borrowed from

_{Zempléni}

(1984).

This

_expression

refers to Balandier’s ’col-onial situation’

(see

Balandier,

1951).

4 See Brackelaire

(1992)

and Morin

_{(1992, 1994)}

on the

_political

and territorial stakes of the

_{indigenous struggles}

in the Amazon.

5 On the rise of the world

_indigenous

and

_indigenist

movements, see

_Burger

(1987)

and

_Wright

(1988).

6 On the worldwide administrative structure of aid and

_development

created after the Second World War see Guichaoua and Goussault

(1993: 43).

7 On the

_{growing recognition}

of

_{indigenous peoples by}

international

organi-zations see Van de Fliert

(1994)

and Rouland

_(1996).

8

_Through

_pressure from

_{indigenous organizations}

and

_indigenist

NGOs, it was

revised into Convention 169

_{’concerning indigenous}

tribes and

_peoples

in

independent

countries’.

9

_Eighteen

_years later the First World Summit of

_{Indigenous People}

was held in

Guatemala

_{(May 1993)}

as a satellite

_meeting

of the Vienna UN World

Confer-ence on Human

_Rights.

10 In

_Europe:

International Work

_Group

for

_Indigenous

Affairs

(IWGIA,

Copen-hagen,

1968);

Survival International

_{(London, 1969);}

_{Indigenous Peoples}

Center for Documentation, Research and Information

(DOCIP, Geneva, 1978).

In the US: Cultural Survival

_(Cambridge,

MA,

1972).

11 The UN ECOSOC

_{special study}

led to the creation

₍₁₉₈₂₎

of the United Nations

_{Working Group}

on

_{Indigenous Peoples}

_(UNWGIP)

which finalized in

1993 a Draft Declaration on the

_Rights

of

_{Indigenous Peoples}

(see

Burger,

1994; Morin and Saladin

_d’Anglure,

1994; Schulte-Tenckhoff,

1995).

12 On the

_origin

of this notion and its use in Latin America, see Cardoso de

Oliveira

(1978: 75-82).

13 ’Tribal

_People

in Bank-financed

_Projects’

(OMS 2.34)

and OD 4.20 on

’Indigenous

Peoples’.

See also Goodland

(1982)

and Davis

_(1994).

14 See recent World Bank _papers on this

_subject:

Warren

(1993);

Davis

(1993a,b)

and Davis and Ebbe

_(1995).

15 See Turner

₍₁₉₉₁₎

and Albert

(1993)

on this

_{’participant}

observation’ in the

Amazon.

16 For a recent

_global

assessment see IWGIA

₍₁₉₉₆₎

_{and Johnston}

_(1994).

17 For Yanomami,

_Kayapo

(Brazil)

and Kanak

(French

New

Caledonia)

examples

see Albert

_(1993),

Turner

₍₁₉₉₂₎

and Bensa

(1995: 247-53).

18 In this

_instance,

the structural

_ambiguities

of

_{political delegation -}

or its

devi-ations - are no less

_pronounced

than those we are familiar with in our own

societies (see Bourdieu,

1987).

References

AIAS

_(Australian

Institute of

_Aboriginal

_{Studies) (1986)}

_Special

Feature: 25 Years of

_{Anthropology,}

Australian

_Aboriginal

Studies 1.

Albert, B.

₍₁₉₈₈₎

’La Fumée du métal. Histoire et

_{représentations}

du contact chez les Yanomami du Brésil’, L’Homme 106-7: 87-119.

Albert, B.

(1992)

’Indian Lands, Environmental

_Policy,

and

_{Military Geopolitics}

in the

_Development

of the Brazilian Amazon: The Case of the Yanomami’,

Develop-ment and

_Change

_23(1):

35-70.

Albert, B.

₍₁₉₉₃₎

’L’or cannibale et la chute du ciel. Une

_{critique chamanique}

de l’économie

_politique

de la nature’, L’Homme 126-8: 353-82.

Albert, B.

₍₁₉₉₄₎

’Gold Miners and Yanomami Indians in the Brazilian Amazon: The Hashimu Massacre’, in B.

_Johnston

_(ed.)

Who

_Pays

the Price? The Sociocultural Context

_{of Environmental}

Crisis, pp. 47-55.

Washington,

DC: Island Press.

Albert, B.

₍₁₉₉₅₎

_{’"Anthropologie appliquée"}

ou

_{"anthropologie impliquée"?}

Ethnographie,

minorités et

_{développement’, in J.F.}

Baré (ed.) Les

_Applications

de

_{l’anthropologie.}

Un essai de

_{réflexion}

à

_partir

de la France, pp. 87-118, 259-69. Paris: Karthala.

Albert, B.

_(with

G. Goodwin

_Gomez)

(1997a)

Saúde Yanomami. Um manual

etno-lingüístico.

Belém: Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi.

Albert, B.

_(1997b)

_{’Territorialité,}

_{ethnogenèse}

et

_{développement.}

Note sur les

"terres

_{indigènes"}

et le mouvement indien en Amazonie _{brésilienne’,} Cahiers

des

_{Amériques}

Latines.

Althabe, G.

(1993)

’Choix et

_{responsabilité}

en

_{anthropologie’,}

_Journal

des

Anthropo-logues

50-1: 35-7.

Augé,

M.

₍₁₉₈₉₎

’La Force du

_{présent’,}

Communications 49: 43-55.

Balandier, G.

₍₁₉₅₁₎

’La Situation coloniale:

_{approche théorique’,}

Cahiers Interna-tionaux de

_Sociologie

11: 44-79.

Bensa, A.

(1995)

Chroniques

Kanak.

_{L’ethnologie en}

_marche

_(Ethnies

Documents

18-19).

Paris:

_Peuples

Autochtones et

_{Développement/Survival}

International France.

Bourdieu, P.

(1982)

’La Force de la

_{représentation’}

and ’Décrire et

_prescrire:

les conditions de

_{possibilité}

et les limites de l’efficacité

_{politique’,}

in Ce

_{que parler}

veut dire. L’économie des

_{échanges linguistiques,}

_{pp. 135-48,} 149-61. Paris:

Fayard.

Bourdieu, P.

₍₁₉₈₇₎

_’Espace

social et

_{pouvoir symbolique’}

and ’La

_{Délégation}

et le fétichisme

_{politique’,}

in Choses dites, pp. 147-66, 185-202. Paris: Editions de Minuit.

Brackelaire, V.

₍₁₉₉₂₎

’La

_{Problématique}

des terres indiennes _{d’Amazonie’,} Prob-lèmes

_{d’Amérique}

latine 7: 99-122.

Burger, J.

(1987)

Report from

the Frontier: The State

_of

the World’s

_{Indigenous People.}

London: Zed Books;

_Cambridge:

Cultural Survival.

Burger, J.

(1994)

’The United Nations and

_{Indigenous Peoples’,}

in L. Van de Fliert

(ed.)

Indigenous Peoples

and International

_{Organisations,}

_{pp. 90-103.}

_Nottingham:

Spokesman.

Caillé, A.

(1993)

La Démission des clercs. La crise des sciences sociales et l’oubli du

_politique.

Paris: La Découverte.

Cardoso de Oliveira, R.

(1978)

A

_sociologia

do Brasil

_indigena.

Rio

_{de Janeiro: Tempo}

Brasileiro.

(First

published

1966).

Cernea, M.

₍₁₉₈₈₎

_{Non-governmental Organizations}

and Local

_Development.

World Bank Discussion

_Papers

40.

_Washington,

DC: The World Bank.

Davis, S.H.

(ed.) (1993a)

Indigenous

Views

_{of Land}

and the Environment. World Bank

Davis, S.H.

(ed.) (1993b)

The Social

_{Challenge of Biodiversity}

Conservation. Global Environment

_{Facility Working Paper}

1.

_Washington,

DC: The World

Bank/UNDP/UNEP.

Davis, S.H.

₍₁₉₉₄₎

’The World Bank and

_Operational

Directive 4.20’, in L. Van de Fliert

_(ed.)

_Indigenous

_Peoples

and International

_{Organisations,}

_{pp. 75-89.}

Notting-ham :

_Spokesman.

Davis, S.H. and K. Ebbe

(1995)

Traditional

_Knowledge

and Sustainable

_Development.

EDS

_Proceedings

Series 4.

_Washington,

DC: The World Bank.

Descola, P. and A.-C.

_Taylor,

eds

₍₁₉₉₃₎

’Introduction’, Numéro

_{spécial:}

La

Remon-tée de l’Amazone.

_{Anthropologie}

et histoire des sociétés amazoniennes, L’Homme

126-8: 13-24.

Drucker,

C.

₍₁₉₈₈₎

’Dam the Chico:

_{Hydropower Development}

and Tribal

Resist-ance’, in

_{J.H. Bodley}

(ed.)

Tribal

_Peoples

and

_Development

Issues, pp. 151-65. Mountain View, CA:

_{Mayfield Publishing Company.}

Dyck,

N.

_{and J.B.}

Waldran

(1993)

Anthropology,

Public Policy and Native

_Peoples

in

Canada. Montréal:

_{McGill-Queen’s University}

Press.

Ellen, R.F.

₍₁₉₈₆₎

’What Black Elk Left Unsaid. On the

_{Illusory Images}

of Green

Primitivism’,

Anthropology Today

2(6):

8-12.

Geertz, C.

(1988)

Works

and

Lives. The

_{Anthropologist}

as Author. Stanford, CA:

Stan-ford

_University

Press.

Goodland, R.

(1982)

Tribal

_Peoples

and Economic

_Development.

Human

_Ecologic

Con-siderations.

_Washington,

DC: The World Bank.

Guichaoua, A. and Y Goussault

₍₁₉₉₃₎

Sciences sociales et

_{développement.}

Paris: Armand Colin.

IWGIA

_{(International}

Work

_Group

for

_Indigenous

_{Affairs) (1995)}

The

_Indigenous

World 1995-96.

_Copenhagen:

IWGIA.

Johnston,

B.R.

_{(ed.) (1994)}

Who

_Pays

the Price? The Sociocultural Context

_of

Environ-mental Crisis.

_Washington,

DC: Island Press.

Kilani, M.

₍₁₉₉₀₎

’Les

_{Anthropologues}

et leur savoir: du terrain au _texte’,

_{in J.-M.}

Adam,

_M.-J.

Borel, C. Calame and M. Kilani

(eds)

Le Discours

_{anthropologique,}

pp. 71-109. Paris: Méridiens Klincksieck.

Kuper,

A.

₍₁₉₈₈₎

The Invention

_of

Primitive

_{Society. Transformations of}

an Illusion.

London: Routledge.

Leach, E.

₍₁₉₈₉₎

’Tribal

_Ethnography:

_{Past, Present, Future’,} in E. Tonkin, M. McDonald and M.

_Chapman

(eds)

History

and

_Ethnicity,

_pp. 34-47. London:

Routledge.

Leclerc, G.

(1979)

L’Observation de l’Homme. Une histoire des

_{enquêtes}

sociales. Paris: Seuil.

Malinowski, B.

₍₁₉₇₈₎

_{Argonauts of}

the Western

_Pacific.

An Account

_of

Native

_Enterprise

and Adventure in the

_Archipelagos

_of

Melanesian New Guinea. London:

_Routledge

&

_Kegan

Paul.

Marcus, G.

(1991)

’Identidades

_passadas,

_presentes e _emergentes:

_requisitos

_para

etnografias

sobre a modernidade no final do século XX ao nível mundial’,

Revista de

_Antropologia

34: 197-221.

Morin, F.

(1992)

’Revendications et

_{stratégies politiques}

des

_{organisations}

_{indigènes}

amazoniennes’, Cahiers des

_{Amériques}

Latines 13: 75-85.

Morin, F.

₍₁₉₉₄₎

’De l’ethnie à l’autochtonie.

_{Stratégies}

_politiques

amérindiennes’,

Caravelle 63: 161-74.

Morin, F. and B. Saladin

_d’Anglure

(1994)

’Le

_{"développement" politique}

des

Paine, R.

_{(ed.) (1985)}

_Advocacy

and

_{Anthropology,}

First Encounters. St

_John’s,

New-foundland : ISER/Memorial

University

of Newfoundland.

Ramos, A.R.

(1990)

’Ethnology

Brazilian

_Style’,

Cultural

_Anthropology

5 (4):

452-7. Redford, K.H.

₍₁₉₉₁₎

’The

_Ecologically

Noble

_Savage’,

Cultural Survival

_Quarterly

15(1):

46-8.

Rouland, N.

₍₁₉₉₆₎

’Le Droit des

_peuples

autochtones’, in N. Rouland

_(ed.)

Droit des minorités et des

_peuples

_{autochiones, pp.} 347-553. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Schulte-Tenckhoff,

I.

₍₁₉₉₅₎

’The Irresistible Ascension of the UN Draft Declara-tion on the

_Rights

of

_{Indigenous Peoples: Stopped}

Short in Its Tracks?’, Native American Studies

_9(2):

5-8.

Stern,

SJ.

(1987) Resistance, Rebellion,

and Consciousness in the Andean Peasant World. Madison:

_University

of Wisconsin Press.

Stocking,

G.

(1983)

’The

_{Ethnographer’s Magic.}

The

_Development

of Fieldwork in

British

_Anthropology

from

_Tylor

to Malinowski’, in G.W.

_Stocking

(ed.)

Observers Observed

_{(History of Anthropology}

I),

pp. 70-121. Madison:

University

of

Wisconsin Press.

Todorov, T.

₍₁₉₈₉₎

Nous et les autres. La

_{réflexion française}

sur la diversité humaine. Paris:

Editions

du Seuil.

Turner, T.

₍₁₉₉₁₎

_{’Representing, Resisting, Rethinking:}

Historical Transformations

of Kayapo

culture and

_{Anthropological}

Consciousness’, in G.W.

_Stocking

_(ed.)

Colonial Situations:

_Essays

on the Contextualization

_{of Ethnographic Knowledge}

(History of Anthropology,

7),

pp. 285-313. Madison:

University

of Wisconsin Press.

Turner, T.

(1992)

’Defiant

_Images.

The

_{Kayapo Appropriation}

of Video’,

Anthro-pology Today

8(6):

5-16.

Van de Fliert, L.

(ed.) (1994)

Indigenous Peoples

and International

_{Organisations.}

Nottingham: Spokesman.

Viveiros de Castro, E.B.

₍₁₉₉₃₎

’Le marbre et le _myrte. De l’inconstance de l’âme

sauvage’,

in A. Monod

_Becquelin

and A. Molinié

(eds)

Mémoire de la _tradition,

pp. 365-431. Nanterre: Société

d’Ethnologie.

Warren, D.M.

₍₁₉₉₃₎

_{Using Indigenous Knowledge}

in

_{Agricultural Development,}

2nd edn,

World Bank Discussion

_Papers

127.

_Washington,

DC: The World Bank.

Wright,

R.

₍₁₉₈₈₎

_{’Anthropological Presuppositions}

of

_{Indigenous Advocacy’,}

Annual Review

_{of Anthropology}

17: 365-90.

Zempléni,

A.

₍₁₉₈₄₎

’Secret et

_{sujétion. Pourquoi}

ses "informateurs"

_parlent-ils

à

l’ethnologue?’,

Traverses 30-1: 102-15.

▪ Bruce Albert,

anthropologist,

is a senior researcher of the Institut

_{Français}

de

Recherche

_Scientifique

_{pour le}

_{Développement}

en

_{Coopération}

_{(ORSTOM, Paris).}

He has worked since 1975 with the Yanomami Indians of Brazil,

_conducting

ethno-graphic

research

(ritual

and

_{political organization, ethnohistory}

and social

_change,

cosmology

and

_ethnicity)

and

_{participating}

as consultant

_{anthropologist}

in field

projects

(health, education)

or

_legal

initiatives

_(land

and human

_rights)

for the