Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Artigo - Ethnology Brasilian Style.1990 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Bruno Andrade
    1 views21 pages

    Original Title

    artigo.ethnology brasilian style.1990.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views21 pages

    Artigo - Ethnology Brasilian Style.1990 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Bruno Andrade

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 21
    Ethnology Brazilian Style ‘Aleida Rita Ramos Universidade de Bras ‘To-wrte about the work of our colleagues and our own is never an easy task, ‘not only because ofthe close involvement with the subject matter, but also be cause, in characterizing someone else's writings, there i always the risk of mis Understandings, distortions, omissions, and othe injustices. What follows isthe personal view of someone who has been conducting indigenous studies since the 1960s, and has, therefore, her own understanding of the field. My reading of eth nological production in Brazil will probably differ from that of my Brazilian col- leagues, and will certainly be different from that of foreign ethnologist, But, being totally immersed in the ethnological community of the country, I could never pretend to pose as an impartial observer. ‘The reason I propose this exercise is twofold; one isto present to & non- Brazilian audience some of the features of ethnographic work dane in Brazil the ‘other isto address the question of the social responsibilty of ethnographers in their actions and writings regarding the peoples they study Iv is not my intention to doa survey of the literature on Brazilian Indians, this has been competently dane by several people, among them Baldus (1954, 1968), his suecessor Hartmann (1984), and Melati (1982, 1984). Nor isto ex: ‘haut the eld of personal styles and biographies of specifi anthropologists even if Thave to focus on one oF two major figures in the Bld. What I want to do is {emphasize some aspects of Brazilian ethnography that give it specificity and iden- tty. Perhaps much of what is sid hee is seer wishful thinking or, at times, also ‘an expression of frustration and dissatisfaction, Be that as it may, ethnology should be practiced with a dose of passion and that, I fee, isnot lacking in Brazil Perhaps our northern readers will have to make a certain mental effort t0 catch the implied rather than explicit tone of our discourse, Being outspoken is ‘ot one ofthe most salient features of Brazilianness, But ich an effort canbe, 1 hope, an interesting ethnographic experience ofits own, a sot of “fusion of ho rizons" without fallin into the tap of confusion of premises. Some of the local color will necessarily be lost inthe translation ito the English mode of thinking, but the effort of communicating with a foreign audience will perhaps force me to ‘make more explicit certain thoughts that might otherwise never come out ofthe narrow space between the lines. Ethos, Style, and Involvement Ethnographic studies of indigenous societies in Brazil have followed diff cent tends, depending basically on whether the ethnographer is a Brazilian or a os ETHNOLOGY BRAZILIANSTYLE 483, foreigner, As Melati (1982) has already pointed out, foreign anthropologists have ‘mostly focused on aspects of culture and socal organization, whereas Brazilian anthropologists have tended to concentrate onthe subject of contact and its im= plications to the indigenous peoples. This, of course, being the main trend, has its counterexamples (see Graeve [1976] as an example ofa foreigner dealing with contact, and Da Matta (1976, 1979], Melat (1977, 1978, 1979}, Vier [1976], Viveiros de Castro [1986] as some examples of Brazilians handling “traditional” culture, ‘Most ethnographies written by non-Brazlians limit the information on the ‘contact situation of the Indian groups in question toa bref historical description that accompanies background data provided to contextualize the analyses that ‘constitute the main body ofthe work. It des not mean that these ethnographer, ‘if unaware ofthe polities of contact are in search of the ‘cultural purty” of Brazilian Indians, Ii rather, oF soit seems to me, the theoretical interests they ‘develop in their own academic milieu at home that orient them to first select topics and then indigenous groups to match. These topies may range from submerged symbolic lineages, to the social role of music, to concepts of privacy, t the car ‘ying capacity affecting an indigenous economy. All of these things can be tteated and often are—without reference tothe inequality of interethnic rela- tions that nowadays weighs on all Indian groups on the continent, not justin Bra- 2il, There is something uncomfortably false in disregarding ths pervasive fac, for no matter how “neutral” the research topic may be, itis impossible to ignore the imposing fact that thee is no longer an ‘solated tne” anywhere. An indig- ‘enous society can be, and shouldbe, studied from a variety of angles, but to pre- tend thatthe consequences of contact can be conveniently bracketed out isto cte- ate an anthropological illusion. “The privileged focus of Brazilian ethnology on interethnic relations is, like ‘most things, linked toa specific social interest and historical context, Its asso ciated with an attitude of political commitment to the defense of the rights ofthe peoples studied. Natural as this interest may seem 0 us, ithas, nevertheless, pro- duced a certain puzzlement, if not discomfort, on the pat of foreign colleagucs, either because they prefer not to be sucked into the professionally dangerous ‘meanders of political hassles, or because they fel that one cannot do both well at the same time, For instance, ina paper presented atthe Work Group on Indige- ‘ows Policy during the Fifth Annual Meeting of ANPOCS (Associagio Nacional 4e PSs-Graduacdo e Pesquisa em Ci8ncias Sociais), Anthony Seeger (1981) ex- ‘presse his perplexity atthe apparently impossible task of combining academic research with political involvement, and his doubts as to whether both could be done equally well. ‘Such impossibility is more apparent than real. On the one hand, research topics such as mythology o ritual might be examined asif the whites didnot exist, as if the Indians were in a pure state of socal isolation, But even here it would require a great effort of abstraction to pretend that contact has not affected the symbolic realms of indigenous life. The result would amount to something verg- ing on ethnographic mystfcation. Even when Brazilian anthropologists dedicate 41 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY ‘months or years of their lives collecting and analyzing data on kinship, myths, spiritual worlds, or other supposedly "cold" issues, the treatment done to these topics is underlined with the more or less visible influence of interethnic contact. On the other hand, these same anthropologists are repeatedly called upon to par- ticipate, in a variety of ways, in the defense of indigenous rights.’ They are not allowed (even though sometimes they have So wished) to be lft in the peace and {quiet oftheir academic offices. Some of the working time that might be spent in ‘theoretical thinking of in sharpening methodological tools is put int political ac- tion, This loss, however, can be compensated for by an increase in sensitivity, ‘maturity, and commitment to profoundly serious human issues, ‘Some themes are more directly related to apolitical stance than other, In- ian-white contact being one of them. In such eases, part and parcel of the eth- nographie investigation isthe postion the researcher takes and the Indians have ‘come to expect and increasingly demand. The Black Panther adage ofthe 60s in the United States ean now be applied to many a case in indigenous Brazil: you're either part of the solution, of you'te part ofthe problem, Scientific neutrality, either inthe name of rigor in research or of impotence in politics, is being less and less tolerated by both the ethnographer's peers and his Indian hosts.* “Moreover, intensive fieldwork among an indigenous society or, for that mat ‘er, anyother human group, isnever devoid of involvement. Gift-giving, working with preferred informants, answering questions about our own society and other bits of constant interaction put the ethnographer inthe middle ofan unavoidable political scene, subtle as it may seem, whether he wants itor not. To take this fact into consideration for purposes of the research isthe crucial point here; it depends on theoretical interests, professional style, personal sensitivity, a greater or smaller degree of political naiveté. Even the superb ethnography of Evans-Prit- chard sufers from the insufficient attention the author paid tothe nature of his involvement with the Nuer as an Englishman, and to the politcal stain under which those people were living atthe time of his fieldwork. Some puzzling as- pects of The Nuer, such asthe role of prophets are the result ofhis silence on this, mater, ‘There is no purely academic research; what there isis the rhetorical possi- bility and personal inclination to exclude from one's written works the interactive, politcal, moral, or ethical aspects of fieldwork. By the same token, engagement in politcal issues regarding Indian policy, time-consuming asi ean be at times (iting up documents, accompanying Indians to Congress, to governmental of- fice or elsewhere, excruciatingly long and convoluted discussions well nto the igh, is not exactly a digression from a scientifically oriented program of work. No science exists in a social vacuum, much less so in the case of ethnology. Fur- ‘hermore, if we tke ths kind of engagement as being itself a subject of anthro- ological thinking, then the apparent “schizophrenia pointed out by Seeger be- ‘comes a perfectly valid course of professional ation, in that observers and ob- served are both seen a ators and agents inthe same scenario, Afterall in writing anethnography, itis the ethnographer himself who constructs it, who chooses the ‘one, and shapes it to his own image, whether he admits itor not. He is an integral part of it ETHNOLOGY BRAZILIAN STYLE 455 ‘Seeger raised an interesting point, but it should be examined more closely, as there are some specific aspects of ethnographic research in Brazil that come imo the piture and may not have counterparts in other anthropology-producing countries, This would make an interesting research topic ofits own. But before that is done, it may be a bit premature to judge whether or not it is possible to sc.sed in both academic and activist endeavors. One thing i certain. Practically every ethnologist in Brazil, in one way or another, has some sort of involvement with the destiny ofthe county's indigenous peoples.* which reflects onthe char- acter of his research, his choice of topics, of theoretical approaches, fieldwork strategies, and ethnographic writings. ‘There are, ofcourse, many foreign anthropologists deeply involved with the defense of indigenous rights. Their concer is no less strong or effective than that oftheir Brazilian colleagues. The point Iam tying to make, in response to See- gers challenge, is that, unlike Brazilian edhnolopsts, North American and British anthropologists havea tendency to make the option: they either stay in academia land practice human rights in the interstices of their professional time, if at all, or they give up academic carers to dedicate themselves full-time to advocacy work. [InBrazil, patting together academic duties and the practic of social responsibility is not only frequent, but highly desirable and expected by the anthropological ‘community as a whole. It is posible that the nature of academic work in Brazil is such tat it permits greater freedom of action than inthe anthropological envi- ronments of the Anglo-Saxon world. This, however, would not be enough to ‘make the difference * How has this Brazilian ethnological ethos come about? What are the histor- ical and social ingredients that combined to produce this style of anthropology or, ‘more specifically, of indigenous ethnology” In her characterization of the brand of anthropology tha is practiced in Bra- Zl, Mariza Peirano (1981) traces the birth of the discipline to the rots ofthe ‘modernist movement of the 1920s and the effort to build a Brazilian nation. The responsibilty of the intellectuals was to construct a national identity based on what was “native.” Amtists, writers, sociologists and other thinkers did not sim= ply produce work for their own individual satisfaction or forthe advancement of science as such. Their production was motivated and oriented around a civil re- sponsibility vis-d-vis the consolidation of a well-defined nationality. Each one ‘worked asa citizen, contributing something tothe new nation. Anthropology ap- ‘eared and blossomed inthis context. But, while participating in the broader na- tion: building effort, early anthropologists also took pains to differentiate them- ‘selves from ther fellow humanists by creating a discipline of their own based on. that privileged source of nativeness, the Indians. For nearly seventy year, the anthropologist as citizen (Peirano 1985) has been a national figre.* ‘At the root of the humanistic flavoring of Brazilian anthropology is the in- spiration ofits founding fathers in early 20th century. Whereas in Britain and elsewhere the first anthropologists were mostly physicists, medical doctors, ex= perimental psychologists and other representatives of the hard sciences, bringing with them a baggage of stietistic assumptions and expectations, in Brazil, cul- 456 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY ‘ural anthropology sprang from a tradition common to philosophers, writers, and other humanists, as Peirano points out. Its true that other professionals, such as ‘medical doctors, adopted anthropology, both physical and cultural. Bu, I think itis fart say, contemporary Brazilian anthropology retains very few signs of their influence, apart from sparse contributions tothe ethnography of a limited numberof Indian or rural peoples. The principal mode of anthropological thinking in the country has no affinity with the exact sciences. We might trace a parallel With the development of ethnology in France in the 1920s that was deeply inf enced by the surrealist movement (Cliffont 1981). Perhaps Pascal's famous dis. tinction—esprit de géomérie versus esprit de finesse—might well be an ap ims pressinistic image to portay the respective anthropological worlds in Anglo- ‘American and in Latin traditions. ‘This humanistic slant of anthropology in Brazil, and the recurrent social in volvement ofits professionals, may be doe to yet another Factor, thats, the fact, ‘that Brazil has been a colonized country for four centuries bth before and after political independence from Portugal. Such colonization is not simply a matter of {economic dependence. It also—and perhaps most importanty—involves the he- _gemony of Euro-American ideas, attitudes, and fashions that, directly oF ind rectly, invade the minds ofthe population of countries such a$ Brail which, in this respect, is no different from other Latin American nations. ‘Along with such imposition comes the reaction to iin the form of a posture critical of things hegemonic. It is not surprising that this condition of colonized has shaped a styl of social thinking proper to Brazilian intelligentsia, Much of the imelectual effort of socal scientists has been devoted to dissect and under- stand the historical character, the political twists and turns, and the social impli- cations of suc a predicament, This critical posture, often but not always of Marx- ist inspiration, has had the effect of departing from the positivist style of North ‘American or British socialsciences. Brazilian anthropology, having grovn up in very cose contact with the other socal sciences that have a strong tradition of being highly politicized, has been influenced by the same spirit. That does not ‘mean that positivism is foreign to Brazilian socal sciences, but when itis there, itis heavily shaded with other colors and other influences (Velho 1982) ‘The engagement of Brazilian anthropologists in things political does not {jeopardize their concer fr rigorous academic work. The quality of this work, as ‘anywhere els inthe world, varies with individuals and with institutions, but the ‘overall picture is that anthropology in Brazil meets international standard of qual- ity while maintaining its own flavor. We court various influences and inspirations, butare faithful to none. We peak the lingua franca of anthropological theory, but retain our own thick and recognizable accent Incontemporary Brazilian anthropology, itis the Indian isue thats the main focus of political attention, even though ethnologsts dedicated to indigenous ‘studies are but a minority inthe profession. Why should ths be? Of al the concrete objects of Brazilian anthropological research, indigenous societies are the best representatives of “Othemess.” In studying an Indian _gr0up, the ethnologist does not have to create a methodologically desired dis- [ETHNOLOGY BRAZILIANSTYLE. 487 tance, a isthe ease with work among peasants, urban dwellers, or other segments ‘ofthe national society. This distance, guaranteed by diferent historical processes and traditions, facilitates the ethnologist's work by educing the interference that too much familiarity withthe object may produce. Thus, politcal involvement in the Indian cause is not so completely woven into one’s own personal life (as i, for instance, the case ofa feminist studying feminism or & homosexual studying the gay movement) as to impair the critical sense that is necessary for analysis. ‘Yet, Brazilian Indians ae our Others, they are part of our country, they con= stitute an important ingredient in the process of building our nation, they represent ‘one of our ideological mirrors reflecting our frustrations, vanities, ambitions, and power fantasies. We do not regard them as so completly exotic, remote, oF ar- ‘ane, a to make them into literal “objects.” Their humanity is never lost on us, ‘their predicament is ourhistorical gu, their destiny is as much thers ait ous Tam not saying that ethnologiss who study Indians are the only professionals ‘engaged in human rights activites in Brazil, nor that Indians are the only sector ofthe country's population to deserve that sort of attention, What Iam arguing is that the Indian question isa particulaely privileged field forthe exercise ofthe {twofold project of academie work and political action. For indigenous peoples ae the most dramatic example of being oppressed for being different and, as we never ‘miss a chance to emphasize, cultural differences and social diversity are the soul ‘tuff of vital principle of anthropology. In the field of Indian studies, anthropologists finda politcal cause tht is all the more worthy of fighting forthe deeper one goes into the understanding of the indigenous worlds, OF course, the understanding. one gains is proportional to ‘one’s dedication to systematic ethnographic investigation, an investigation that should cover as much cultural ground as itis possibie to cover, including the not so explicitly political spheres of their lives. The experience of several of us has showin that there i «correlation between solid ethnographic work and effectual political action, not only because of accumulated knowledge, but also due to the authority that such knowledge confers. T shall now try to identify some features of ethnographic research in Brazil and show the role they play in the shaping of indigenous studies. I must again insist that this is not an exhaustive survey of the field, but rather my own view of it, focusing on some contebutions Brazilian anthropologists have made to both anthropological theory and toa better understanding of Indian problems. ‘In Brazil as anywhere else where anthropology has been established as an “ongoing academic interes, fieldwork isa fundamental part ofthe discipline, The specificities of an academic career in Brazil have created a pater of fieldwork that has had consequences othe style of ethnology to which Ihave been referring. On the one hand, the eritcal posture described above is part of our university trajectory and predisposes us to pay attention to politically relevant issues inthe field. On the other hand, the careful preservation of academic quality has resulted {in some important and original ways of approaching certain problems of wide ‘erest tothe profession at large. In order to better contextualize this point, I hink 458 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY itis worth discussing the conditions under which fieldwork i usually done in Bra- 2il and some ofthe most relevant advances in indigenous studies, ‘The Field in Our Backyard Rarely has a Brazilian ethnographer spent a whole continuous year in the field. The reasons for this are various, but we can mention three: limited funds, restrictions regarding absence from jobs, and the feld-in-our-backyard syndrome. Funding agencies tend to provide amounts of money far too small fr long stays in the feld. Although this fund restriction was much more acute inthe ’50s and °60s, it is by no means a thing of the past. The great majority of research funds come from government agencies, be they federal or state supported, and as such their budgets oscillate withthe changes in publi spending policies ‘Another factor limiting the time spent inthe fed is the difficulty of getting prolonged leaves of absence. University jobs, especially, tie the researcher toa work schedule that gives him a maximum of 45 days’ vacation and, in some of them, a one-semester sabbatical. Being away in any other capacity involves a ‘ther long bureaucratic process of request to leave, with or without pay, starting at the department level and going all the way tothe central administration of the ‘university. A trip abroad takes the process even futher, to the Minister of Edu- cation, requiring his signature and that ofthe President ofthe Republic. Shortage of faculty in many anthropology departments also discourages absences of over six months. We might say that doctoral candidates are nowadays the only ones with te time, disposition, and possibility (even the obligation) to spend about a year doing fckdwork. But this is of recent date, since the creation of doctoral programs in anthropology, especially atthe National Museum in Rio de Janeiro, and a the University of Brasilia ull-ledged ethnographers take short trips to Indian areas mainly during the summer months (December through March). This patter, of course, is closely linked t the notion thatthe Indians are relatively near, at easy reach, illusive as {his impression may be in some cases. For example, a trip tothe Upper Rio Negro area, to Amapé, Acre, or Roraima is almost as costly, if aot more, in time, ‘money, and effort for a Brazilian as itis fora foreign researcher coming from abroad: Added to these difficulties are the ups and downs of the offical Indian policy with ts erratic decisions on whether or not to allow ‘strangers into Indian Parly asa consequence of these shor-term visits, Brazilian ethnographers| rarely havea good command ofthe language ofthe indigenous group they study ‘They citer rely on interpreters or onthe knowledge the Indians have of Port _guese. Giving priority tothe theme of interethnic relations, important as its, may very well work a an alibi to dispense with the need to len the Indian language, asit presumes a long-standing experience of the Indians with nationals anda finly ‘good command of Portuguese on tei pat. How does al this affect the quality of ethnological studies in Brazil? Naturally, a style of fieldwork done, as it were, in spurts, most often con- ducted in the language of the investigator, wll produce results that are very dif- [ETHNOLOGY BRAZILIAN STYLE. 459 ferent from the traditional brand of ethnography a la Malinowski, involving one Jong, continuous stay in the field, followed by a permanent absence or a short, return much later. In contrast, Brazilian ethnographers maintain an ongoing in- teraction with the people they study, amassing ethnographic material through the years and never, really cuting off their ies with them. ‘We can draw some important lessons from this contrast of fieldwork styles. Inthe first place, the Brazilian way of doing researc calls into question the mys- tique of prolonged fieldwork as the necessary rite de passage bound to guarantee ‘successful enry into the temple of academic excellence. Fo, in their piecemeal research, Brazilian anthropologists preserve the quality oftheir writings by a cu- ‘mulative, long-term involvement with the people studied, a tight theoretical for cus, a clear delimitation ofthe problems under investigation, and an acute sens tivity for sociologically critical issues. Second, it raises the question of the ad- ‘vantages and disadvantages ofa concentrated but synchronic field research versus {eld trips that are intermittent but recurrent and lasting for decades. In one case, ‘we have a plethora of fine detail an in-depth analysis that produce a dense picture ‘of a society or part of it. In the other case, we have a gradual constriction of a ‘people's profile that is transformed asthe researcher acquires fresh data and new ‘outlooks at each visit to the field. The first style would be like a sharp, detailed, and heavily textared still photograph; the second could be compared to a motion Picture, a itis less focused on permanence and more on movement. As the prod ‘cto two different traditions and vocations, these styles demonstrate, once again, that in anthropology a one-way road is out of place and out of time. ‘Brian anthropological studies ae said to have a fairly high dose of crea> tivity and innovative verve." Self-indulgence aside, it should be recognized that some of the most influential analytical viewpoints in South American ethnology -have come from the works of Brazilian ethnographers, sometimes in collaboration With foreign colleagues. I shall now discuss two of these perspectives. Persons Are Good to Think Since the days of monographic works, such as Wagley and Galvlo's on the ‘Tenetchara (1961), Baldus's onthe Tapirapé (1970), or even Nimuendajé's on the Sherente (1942), Timbira (1946), and Tikuna (1952), Brazilian ethnography thas changed is style of writing about indigenous societies. Selection of theoret- ical problems became the main trust in choosing a specific society for fieldwork. ‘With the Harvard-Central Brazil Project ofthe "60s, directed by David Maylury- Lewis of Harvard University and Roberto Cardoso de Olivita of the National “Muscum in Rio de Janeiro a series of studies of Ge-speaking peoples was caried ‘ut under the inspiration of the then emergent structualst approach. Two Bra Zilian anthropologists were directly involved in the project: Roberto Da Matta with his study of Apinayé social structure, and Julio Cezar Melati who worked with the Krahé Indians. (utof Melat’s work (1971) came the idea that was tobe the basis for further claboration among “Ge-ologists” and other ethnologists, that i, the notion of 440. CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY {dual kind of transmission of human attributes: physical substance by the genitors, social ingredients by the name-givers. Da Mata expanded on this theme among the Apinayé (1976) to characterize their whole relationship system and is ideo logical underpinnings. Ina joint article, Seeger, Da Matta, and Viveios de Casto (1979) took this idea stil further, sketching a theory of corporeality that would be the South American counterpart to the descent theory ou of Africa o the alliance theory out of Australia, ‘The interest in the notion of personhood among Brazilian Indians developed from this seminal idea of substance versus persona, and asa consequence “*per- son” has come of age inthe country’s ethnographic thinking. A whole book was ‘written on the Krahé concepts of personhood (Carneiro da Cunha 1978); te topic has crossed the boundary of indigenous studies and entered the realm of, among ‘other things, kinship in national society (Abreu Filho 1982). 1am not, of course, implying that Brazilian anthropologists ““invented" personhood as a research topic, a ludicrous idea given te long list of scholars, beginning a east with Mar- ‘el Mauss, who have written about it. My comments are sticly limited to Bra- zilian o, at most, South American ethnology and should not be read as a claim tw anything more grandiose than just that. The emphasis on corporeality, person, substance, and related concepts has ‘worked asa theoretical catalyst for the recurrent statements by ethnologist about the alleged diffuse character of indigenous social organization inthe continent. ‘The often repeated claims of structural uidty (Kaplan 1977; Riviere 1984) are ‘0 more than the expression of anthropologists who, inspite of thei dssatisfac- tion with the models generated by ethnographies from other pars ofthe word, have not found an appropriate alternative approach to South American materials, ‘A social sructure is more or less fui in reference to what? IF the framework on hich the structure is spun takes on the appearance not of aa elaborate genealogy With clearly defined sets of rules but of a network of ideas about atibutes and ‘components of human beings in life and in death, of relationships with the cos- ‘mos, withthe natural a well asthe supernatural word, thea one shoul not sup- ose that such relationships are less basic and constitutive than sociojural arrange ‘ments. Structures ofthat kind are no more nor les fluid than any others. They are simply different? ‘The repercussions of this way of looking at Brazilian Indian societies are reat and being fet in the production of new ethnographic materials (Albert 1985; Mootagner Melati 1985; Viveiros de Castro 1986. See also Kaplan 1986). Even, ifthe mode! drawn by Seeger, Da Matta, and Viveiros de Castro fits Ge societies beter than some others, since these were the empirical inspiration frit, the open- ing up of new ways of perceiving structure is an important stp fo the advance ‘ment of theoretical issues in Brazilian ethnography. Closely related to the idea of person, and the articulation of natural and supematural realms, other aspects of indigenous life have been explored which add to this general interest art (Vidal 1981), naming (Ramos 1974), and cannibalism (Viveiros de Castro and Carneiro «da Cunha 1986), We can perceive one clear direction in which these efforts are pointing, intentionally or not: to let the Indian mode of being, in all ts fascinating [ETHNOLOGY BRAZILIANSTYLE. 461 Aiversity unveil isl tothe ethnographer whois open tothe unexpected Inet, the mor unfamiliar and inelecsally useing an ethnographic discovery, the tore appreciated bythe ethnographer and his audience ‘Astociated withthe concept of persons and is refinements that of iden sity What make an individual feel diferent from everybody else and yet, Louis Dumont notwithstanding, be pat of collectivity? This ise, touched upon in Serious ofthe works mentioned above, ha received relatively it attention (se Viveios de Casto 1975) outside the comet of interetnic relations. “Te constant factor in considering entity has ben the lve of contrast and its comextal variations The deny of Borroperson belonging tothe Macaw ‘lan is quite diferent from the entity ofthat same person nconzst ta epinal Braiian. And ye, itis the same person in oth contexts: what changes 5 the fntinship of contast. We might say that deny isto dilferenceas the same is tothe other, But these concepts of identity and sameness are yet fo be property xplored in anropolgy. ‘Thinking and Rethinking Contact ‘One of the fist problems to be investigated in Brazilian ethnology was the contact situation involving interethnic relations between Indians and whites. In contrast tothe history of North American Indian studies where one ofthe principal responses of anthropologists tothe demise of indigenous populations was o pre= ‘serve what was taken to be their orginal culture, the tapping of informants mem- lofies to extract the “pure culture" from the good ok days, did not flourish in Brazil, Here ethnographic attention was drawn tothe violent processes of destruc: tion of indigenous populations in the fae of white expansionism, “The methods and theories to capture these processes varied along the decades and according tothe researchers’ background, but the basic preoccupation with lunderstanding the mechanisms of white domination, Indian survival strategies, land the transformation of indigenous societies from self-sufficient units to help- less appendages of the national powers was a constant feature of Indian studies “This was done side by side with research on aspects of traditional cultures, but not in the spirit of salvage anthropology. We have, for instance, Egon Schaden's ‘works on the hero mythology of Brazilian Indians (1959), on Guarani culture (1962), but also on Indian acculturation (1965); Galvao's analyses of kinship in the Upper Xingu (1953), but also of accultrative processes in the Upper Rio Ne- ‘ero (1959, 1979}; Baldus's articles on death, chieftaincy, and other topics (19791937), bat also writings on social change andthe role of anthropologists in the contact interaction (1960, 1962) “The model of acculturation, brought down from the United States to Brazil by ethnographers such as Charles Wagley and Edvardo Galvio (a Ph.D. from Columbia Univesity) was the main theoretical resource in the 40s and'50s, But, in crossing the equator, it underwent some changes. Inthe hands of Galvio and, especially, of Darcy Ribeiro, i became politicized; rom an essentially academic ‘exercise in permutations of possible outcomes when two or more cultures meet, 4 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY ‘acculturation studies in Brazil, while still holding the focus of culture traits, ‘ined a critical dimension inthe atemp¢ 0 explain why Indian cultures were being depleted by contact with whites. ‘The intellectual miliew of Sao Paulo in the "40s and "SOs, considered to have been the most politically active and academically sophisticated center in the coun tty (Peirano 1981), produced two of the main figures of Brazilian ethnology hose influence inthe studies of interethnic relations cannot be overlooked, What follows is abriet discussion of the contributions of these scholars—Darcy Ribeiro and Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira—to the understanding of Indian-white contact. Each in his own way, they have imprinted a style of engagement that transcends their individual trajectories and carers. They are part ofa generation of social Scientists who matured in a markedly nationalist phase of Brazilian history, and whose sense of social justice and humanistic concerns were a source of much anx- iety stress, and frustration inthe following decades, aftr the military coup in 1965, Darcy Ribeiro, one of several ethnologist who were employed by the ni tional Indian Protection Service (SPI inthe 'S0s, combined « neo-evolutionist approach with a Marxist inclination. The result was an outstanding series of es says (1970) analyzing the several faces of contact in various regions ofthe coun tty, with dferent degrees of impact on indigenous populations, bu all leading to the death and misery of thousands upon thousands of Indians The sharp, poignant ‘one of Ribeio's style has been highly praised both in Brazil and in other Latin American countries, especially where he lived durin his political exile, His de- ‘nunciations of ethnocide and criminal disruption of Indian lives ate greatly en- ‘hanced by his ability © move audiences both in speech and in writing. Led by the ‘overwhelming evidence ofthe destruction of Indian peoples, he predicted theit disappearance within fifty years, after the devastation caused by infectious ds eases, loss of land and of ethnic dignity had reduced them to "generic Indians” with no trial identity lef. History has proved Ribeiro's prophecy wrong.” In organizing themselves ‘around common grievances, Brazilian Indian have, atte same time, strength- ened their sense of ethnic identity. The “generic Indian" has never materialized in Ribeio's sense; in fact, the term “Indian” has become a political resource ppropriated by the Indians themselves who converted it into an active igure in the context of interethnic antagonism. To be an Indian in Brazil is now to be an important agent in the national political scenario (Ramos 19886) ‘That does not, however, diminish the value of Ribeiro's work. One ofthe ‘most touching pieces inthe ethnography of contac is his report on a Tupian man, Uirg, in search ofthe deity Maira and the promised land, after most of hs family hhad been killed by repeated epidemics. Frustrated in his seach, having sufered all sors of humiliating experiences on the way tothe sea, he is sent back home by agents of te SPL. Uterly demoralized, he commits suicide by throwing him- self into a piana-infested river (Ribeio 1957). The promised land was no longer inthis world as it used to be before the whites invaded (Clastres 1978), [ETINOLOGY BRAZILIANSTYLE 463 Ribeiro’s other studies of the Kadivéu (1948, 1950), and Urubu-Kaapor (1955, and with Berta Ribeiro 1957) have a fragmentary character and lack the {ore of “itd sai ao encontro de Maira" (se also 1974), and his 1970 book, Os Indios ea Civiizagdo Inthat book, he discusses the many fronts of national expansion: agricultural colonization, cattle ranching, rubber tapping, Brazil nut gathering, missionizing He assigns different degrees of virulence to each of them, the least harmful being the gathering of raw materials. Inthe 'S0s, that might have been the case, Inthe "70s and "80s, it was no longer so. Following the construction of roads in Ama- ‘nia, came the interest in lumbering and mining. The scale of mining operations has no resemblance to Ribeiro's descriptions of small bands of nut collectors or ‘of scatered rubber tapers. Mining is now ether done by hundreds of thousands ‘of placer miners (garimpeiros), many times the local indigenous populations, or by the heavy machinery of large-scale industrial companies (CEDI-CONAGE 1988; Ramos 1984). ‘But, in the present asin the past, the spread of contagious diseases is one of| the preates killers of indigenous peoples, especially those with litle time of con- tact. Of an estimated 5 million in 1500, the Indian population of Brazil reached it lowest point inthe late 1950s, with ess than 100,000, recovering a ite inthe last decades, tothe present estimate of about 200,000, less than 0.25 of the coun trys total population, This process of contamination and decimation is master- fully presented by Ribeico. His model of ethnic transiguration, innovative as it was, sill showed a strong influence of the acculturation approach: it was not suftiently sharply fo- ‘cused to take into account the many-faceted, multidimensional consequences of contact. His theoretical and methodological achievements are important, but somewhat obfuscated by his extraordinary ability ro transmit (0 the reader the sense of despair, injustice, helplessness, and te irreversibility of everything con- tact brings along tothe Indians. His 1970 book is a tribute to that suffering part ‘of humanity by an extremely sensitive ethnographer who had inthis sensitivity and eitical outlook his best anthropological asst. In the "60, the acculturation model began to crumble and be replaced by an approach that became known as “interethnic friction.” Is proponent, Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira, a former student of philosophy, worked atthe SPI with Ri- bpeio. His fcldwork among the Terena and the Tikuna Indians was motivated by his strong interest in the sociology of contact. Both groups had along experience ‘with whites, yet different kinds of experience: the Terena surrounded by farming and catle raising whites, the Tikuna by rubber tapping hands and lords. Among the works that came out of those field trips are, especially, O Processo de Assim- ilagdo dos Terena (1960), and 0 Indio e 0 Mundo dos Brancos (1964) (see also 1968, 1983) ‘Cardoso de Oliveira shifted the emphasis from the cultural focus of accul- ‘uration studies tothe field of social relations. Inspired by the work of Georges Balandier on Black Aftica, particularly regarding the concept of colonial situation and its postulate ofa ““syncretctoality," Cardoso de Oliveira took as his main 46) CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY ‘object of research the interethnic situation in which Indians and whites coexist and develop ways of interaction that are specific 1 the context of contact, This, imterrelatedness is seen by him as asymmetrical, generating diametrically opposed interests. Moreover, in a much quoted passage (1972:85-86), he claims thatthe ‘wo parties ofthe contact situation are interdependent, “paradoxical as it may scem.”"The problem with ths statement is tha it may give the impression tht it Pts the Indians on rather more favorable footing than they really are, The whole Process of attraction and pacification of isolated Indian groups is geared t pro- ‘duce one-way dependence, tht of the Indians onthe whites. In fact, the asym metry ofthe relationship is virtually total, fort actually involves a unilateral de pendence. Interdependence and diametical opposition may be true for AVrica ‘where whites, although the power holders ae the demographie minority, there- fore, depending on the blacks fo labor, ee., bu it das not hold for Brazilian Indians Cardoso de Otiveira’s model has reached futher afield than Ribeiro’ ‘hough, in a sense, it gives continuity fo the later. Several of Cardoso’s students were engaged in projects focusing on interethnic friction in various parts of the ‘country (Laraia and Da Matta 1967; Melati 1967; Santos 1970, 1973), and, to this day, anyone who works onthe subject matter of interethnic contact invariably makes use of his analysis. Incontradistnction to Rieito, Cardoso de Oliveira stands out fr his interest in theoretical and methodological experiments, and forthe constant search for ‘new ways of looking into the problematic of contact, Ribeito's mode! of analysis is much more dependent on his personal talent than on the working out ofa cae ful, replicable conceptual framework. Iti precisely on this latter attribute tht, CCardoso's strength les. From interethnic frition he tured his attention to the issue of identity (1976, 1983). From identity he passed on to ethnicity (1976), ‘A spare fieldworker, he opted to do what be called a “sociology of indige- nous Brazil” (1972), His sociology is critical, inspired by the works of authors different as Poulantzas, Mauss, and Lévi-Strauss, with a dose of phenomen- ‘ology. His insistence thatthe study of ideology in the context of ethnic identity should not be dissociated from social relations can beat times minimized when the former weighs slightly more than the later Cardoso de Otiveia’s influence on Brazilian anthropology cannot be over ‘emphasized. In his writings as well asin his teachings, he has forged many a eater in anthropology. His project of interethnic friction, with its emphasis on the contact situation involving Indians and whites, led tothe need to know more about regional populations in contact with Indian groups. Twa major projects — {in Central Brazil and inthe Northeast-—were put into action to study the expan- sion of living frontiers. Among the most important results ofthis project were Lyzia Sigaud’s studies of rural Northeast (1979, 1980), and Otavio Velbo's book ‘on rural Amazonia (1972). In turn, both Sigaud and Velho have stimulated other researchers on this topic. Interethni contact was definitely established asa trademark of Brazilian eth nology. For the best part of thee decades, many students of indigenous societies ETHNOLOGY BRAZILIAN STYLE $65 have been stimulated by Cardoso de Oliveira and have taken to the feld one or another version of his model of interethnic friction. In spite ofthe high quality of. ‘some ofthese works, most of them are sil nthe form of unpublished theses both at the National Museum and atthe University of Brasilia, ewo institutions where Cardoso de Oliveira taught fora total of nearly thirty years ‘But, those heroic and charismatic times, to use an expression by Cardoso de (Oliveira himself (1988), are over. Inthe "70s, the trend has shifted from the obit ‘of father figures around which theoretical trends or political postures coalesced 10 1 dispersed arrangement of ethnographer occupying positions ina variety of in stitutions, mostly state and federal universities, We now form an acephalous body in asort of “ordered anarchy," Nuer style. We have our differences, bickerings, sympathies, or antipathies toward each other's brand of anthropology (be it struc~ turalst, Marxist, interactionis, interpretive), but, like the Nuer, we readily join forces against a Common enemy whenever crucial issues arise involving the hu- ‘man rights of indigenous peoples. We ae not exactly an example of cosy, happy family, but any of us can count on virtually all the others for support and coop- ‘eration when the situation so requires. At the present conjuncture, we ae, a it were, a mild case of ethnological sezmentary opposition Part of the intrest in interethnic contact has led some of us to make incur sions nt other topics closely related toit. One of them is Melatti’s work on Kaho ‘messianism (1972); another is Olivera Filho’s detailed study of kuna fection- lism in the context of interethnic antagonism (1977, 1989); yet another is my ‘own work onintertribal relationships, providing a structural contrast tote Indian- white contact situation (Ramos 1980). From Academic to Political and Back Again ‘The thrust ofthese studies in interethn > relations is to expose the process of domination under which the Indians are fe. ced to live after the so-called “paci fication.”* They are reduced tothe poor st of the rural poor. They ose their lands ‘and te freedom to lve according to their own cultural canons. They suffer a dou ble jeopardy: fr being economically deprived and for being ethnically different. ‘Officially, “Indian” isa temporary condition, Throughout the history of of- ficial protectionism, beginning with the creation of the SPL in 1910, and contin- ting with its suceessr, the present day FUNAI (National Indian Foundation. all policies regarding Indian affairs have been geared toward integration. The in- volvement of the government in this policy has been inereasing to the point of. ‘becoming, in the last decade, a concer of national security. Such integration ‘would mean tansforming the Indians into whites. But, while the official policy ‘emphasizes the need to dissolve the Indians into the supposedly undifferentiated mass of Brazilians, the regional population who interact directly or indirectly with the Indian refuse to accept them as equals. This double bind makes the Indians a permanent target for prejudice, discrimination, and sheer persecution (Ramos 1985) ‘On the one hand, integration in those terms means annihilation of ways of life that are different from what is supposed tobe Brazilian, Considering thatthe 466, CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY ‘national population is itself highly diversified, to demand uniformity ofthe Idi ans is doubly discriminatory: fst, i isthe denial of legitimacy to thei life-style, second, its the imposition of an accommodation that is not required of anyone else in the county. (On the other hand, Keeping the Indians under a constant bombardment of discriminatory measures, as is often the case at the local level, amounts to a kind ‘of psychological annihilation, No matter how we look at it, integration or segre- {gation represent different forms of achieving the same thing—the negation of le- itimate otherness. And being Indian is being other when it comes to interethnic contact. Outside the contrast with Whites (here understood as “civilizados” with- ‘out reference to skin colo) there are no Indians. ‘The most decisive push to break away from this double bind was to come from the Indians themselves. The Brazilian Indian movement has covered some ground in that direction, incipient a the results may stl be, and in spite of rtal- latory action that has led tothe murder of Indian leaders, massacre of entte fam ilies, illegal aress, and other forms of repression on the part of landowner ers, lumber interests, ete. Brazilian anthropology has yet to catch up with the events ofthe last decade that has witnessed a profound transformation in the political role of the Indians at the local and national levels. None of the well-known theoretical approaches — acculturation studies, interethnic friction, or ethnicity, for instanee—seems quite appropriate to unravel the intricacies of the indigenous movements in Brazil to- ‘ay. More sensitive and agile instruments are needed in order to cope withthe bewildering contradictions that continuously spring out in these movements, the kaleidoscopic assemblage of Indian personalities, the extremely fast pace at hich tactics, strategies, and outlooks change, and, last but not leas, the loss of the anthropologists role as spokesman forthe Indians. More than ever the inad= ‘equacy of the subjeet-object chasm, on which mainstream anthropology has rested, appears in its plaring awkwardness, The experience is perhaps too novel to have been assessed with the theoretical tools so far at our disposal, and too recent to give enough time forthe development of new ones (One step in that direction isthe effort to demystify the notion that “totemic™ societies are ahistorical or "cold” and establish once and for all that history is not only present among Indians, but that itis tilored by them in thee own terms, pethaps unrecognizable to us at first sight, but part and parcel oftheir ongoing traditions (Ramos 1988). Indeed, interest in ethnohistory is reappearing in Brazil after a hiatus in ‘hich struturalism predominated (Cameiro de Cunha 1987; Farage 1985; Lara 1984-85; Silva 1984; Wright 1981). Ths new interest in history i no doubt mo- tivated by the urge we have to understand the process of politicization, thats, the insertion ofthe Indian population into the political arena of the whites. Its the feedback effect between his commitment to the anthropological enterprise and to the destiny of indigenous peoples that wll provide the ethnologist with the ele- ‘ments fo cary on lucid and meaningful analyses ofthe complex proces of Indian ‘white contact in which he is inescapably an actor. [ETHNOLOGY BRAZILIAN STYLE. 467 Perhaps novel inthe history of ethnology isthe experience of anthropologists ‘and Indians working together, participating inthe organization of assemblies, in ‘the writing of documents, and in negotiations withthe authorities. This active role ‘of ethnologsts should not be lost tothe theoretical developments yet to come ‘The anthropologist as citizen has responsiblity not only toward the people he studies, but also tothe discipline e practices. Notes Acknowledgments. My thanks to Klaas Woortnann, Mariza Pecan, Bruce Albert, Vin- ‘int Crapanzano, abd Waud Kracke fr having ead and commented on this atic "tn some eases, the Indians themscives rect their ethnograpers Lo asi them; other times iis the Brazilian Antopcogicl Association (ABA) that calls onthe expertise of is members to provide repo for cout cass involving land rights (ABA has signed a “standing aprcment wit the Procuradoria Geral da Replica, “Atormey-Genera,” for ‘hat purpose); congressmen, de press, and oher Key agents the national political yene ‘oflen approach anthropologists fr information and advice. To the pot ace the very reveling statements by several North American anthropologists downplaying the influence that ethnographic writings can hve in the political decisions tha fet indigenous peoples (Booth 1989), “Experienes sich as those reported by Crapanzano (1980), and Kondo (1986), for in sane, canbe extremely revedng ofthe stl fom which ethnography i constcted, “t¢shoul be pointed out that daring his esidence in Brazil inthe 705, Anthony Seeger was actively engaged in human rights, having actually ben chosen as presient of one of ‘he many advocacy groups in Brazil atthe time, the Pro-Indian Commit in Rio de Ja. er, His question can ths be taken a acllenge and cal for reflection rather than 38 the curiosity of am innocent observe. Iso, thas ha the desied effet, frithaswiggeed ‘off moch thinking onthe subject, atleast on my pat (Ramos 19883, 19880) “it has bun very gratifying to me to ea th reports by Fed Myers (1986, 1988) onthe engagement of North American anthropologists inthe problems of contact faced by the “Australian Aborigines. On the oer hand, the active concer that anthzoplogist inthe United States have had with human ight ssueshas nt so far contibuted in any significant, ‘ay to shape the specie brand of Nonh American anvopology as—it is my point—has ten theca in Breil “Klaas Woortnann, my colleague athe University of Bras, bas suggested to me that hile in Brasil anthopologsts have worked toward nation-building, i Beitain and the United States, hey have contributed wo empie-bulding. Certainly, inidents such as the scandalous Project Camelot involving Nor American anthropologists i coverup oper ‘tons the “60s tn to corroborate Woortmann’s insight. Tis may also have too with ‘why most Anglo-American anthropologists shy away from political involvement “at preseat, a large numberof researchers, Brazilian and foreign, are ot allowed into Indian areas especialy inthe north Amazon region, where the military has created the Cala Nort Projet, grandiose plan forthe defense ofthe borers, conto of develop- ‘ment and monitoring of land occupation see Albert 1989). 468 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY ‘tna provocative lite book comparing Noah American and Brazilian academic ethos and habits, Roberto Kant de Lima (1985) shows how

    You might also like