Midterm on Spanish democracy and media
C16784
DeLaCadena.pdf
1. Uncommoning Nature
S t o ri e s f ro m t h e A n t h ro p o - N ot - S e e n
Marisol de la Cadena
A Preamble On June 5, 2009, at dawn, near the northern Amazonian town of Bagua, a violent confrontation took place between police forces and a large group of Peruvian citizens self- identified as belonging to the Awajun Wampis in- digenous group. This event, which resulted in more than thirty deaths, has marked the po liti cal imaginary, if with diff er ent emphases depending on one’s position to the left or the right on the national po liti cal spectrum. In general, the narrative that circulates in the media goes more or less as fol- lows: As part of a general strike, which started on April 9 (that same year) and was or ga nized by several Amazonian indigenous groups, the Awajun Wampis had taken control of a highway in northern Peru at a place called “La Curva del Diablo”— the Dev il’s Curve. They were protesting several de- crees with which the government had conceded their territory to corporate oil exploration without abiding by the ilo (International Labor Organ- ization) agreement 169. This international legislation, to which the Peruvian government officially adheres, requires signatory states to consult the opin- ion of the inhabitants of territories that corporations request for exploration and exploitation. Because they had not been consulted, the concession was illegal, the protestors said. The police’s objective was to break up the high- way blockade; through unknown circumstances (which are under investiga- tion), the confrontation got out of control. According to the official count, the clash— known as el Baguazo (in En glish, “the huge event in Bagua”)—
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
36 Marisol de la Cadena
resulted in more than thirty deaths among the Awajun Wampis and police. Two weeks later, on June 19— under enormous pressure from heterogeneous groups and against the will of then president Alan García— the National Congress canceled the decrees that allowed the concession of indigenous territories to oil companies and transgressed the ilo Convention 169. At the same time, the local state ordered the arrest of some indigenous leaders; they faced charges of murder and sedition. Following a long trial, they were fi nally acquitted in September 2016.1
Among those arrested was Santiago Manuin Valera, the most public in- dividual among the Awanjun Wampis. The following quote is part of his testimony during the trial on April 10, 2014, five years after the event—at the time he faced life in prison: “The government is taking away our territory, the territory of the Awajun Wampis people, so that we become dependent on its [form of ] development. The government never asked: do you want to de- velop? They did not consult us. We responded, ‘Cancel the legislative decrees that affect our existence as a people.’ Instead of listening to our complaint, the government wanted to punish us— other peoples surrendered, we did not. The government ordered our forced eviction” (emphasis added).2 Two weeks after the trial, on April 26, he wrote:
We will never accept that the Government does what it wants with . . . the territory that our ancestors assigned us before the Peruvian state was formed. Peru and the whole world should know that this place of thirty thousand [square] kilo meters is ours and belongs to us; we will always defend it and will give our lives for it. [The Awajun Wampis] were defending our right, our identity, our culture, a development of our own, our forest, our rivers, our cosmos, and our territory.3 (emphasis added)
Manuin ended the statement by declaring his innocence. Why would it be a crime to defend the ancestral territory of the Awajun Wampis against a usurping state? The criminal trial against Manuin and others may be in- terpreted as a conflict over sovereignty, and depending on where we stand, we can support the Awajun Wampis people’s right to defend their territory or side with the state’s prerogative to decide about the national territory and the use of natu ral resources. Taken to the court, this would already be a challenging legal prob lem. However, I intend to argue that at the in- ception of the conflict is a disagreement that would not find resolution within the rule of law— even in its fairest version— for it exceeds its exist- ing domain.
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
Uncommoning Nature 37
Examining the confrontation, and writing in its aftermath, the anthro- pologist Shane Greene suggests “that there [was] more at stake than simply a defense of territory, a protest against cap i tal ist expansion, or a concern over the fate of the environment. What [was] also at stake is a distinct way of life” (2009, 58; emphasis added). Explaining the confrontation in the midst of the strike, Leni— a young Awajun Wampis leader with his face painted in red and black, a bandana around his head— spoke words that may illustrate Greene’s intimation:
We speak of our brothers who quench our thirst, who bathe us, those who protect our needs— this [ brother] is what we call the river. We do not use the river for our sewage; a brother cannot stab another brother. We do not stab our brothers. If the transnational corporations would care about our soil like we have cared for it for millennia, we would gladly give them room so that they could work here— but all they care about is their economic benefit, to fill their coffers with wealth. We do not understand why the government wants to raze our lives with those decrees.4
Taking Greene’s cue and listening to Leni’s words, I want to suggest that in the above statements, “territory” as referred to by Manuín may make ref- erence both to a piece of land under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian state and to an entity that emerges through the Awajun Wampis’ practices of life that may, for example, make people the relatives of rivers, as in Leni’s state- ment. And kinship between people and water and forest may transform ter- ritory into Awajun Wampis, as in a recent public declaration by their leaders in which they said, “Territory is the Awanjun Wampis.”5
This relation— where people and territory are together— exceeds the pos- sibilities of modern humans and modern nature as well as modern relations between them, without precluding any of them. Nevertheless, it complicates the conflict: rather than an abuse of power that can be unmade (with dif- ficulty, of course), the conflict becomes a misunderstanding that is impos- sible to solve without engaging in the terms that make territory other to the state’s ability to understand and therefore other to its recognition. Erupting publicly, the conflict poses a challenge intolerable to the state, and its re- sponse might be the eradication of its roots: the denial of the existence of the terms of the Awajun Wampis. Thus viewed, the conflict is ontological. I draw on Jacques Rancière and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro to conceptualize it as a confrontation housing a historical disagreement (Rancière’s term) about an equivocation (Viveiros de Castro’s term) over what territory is and what
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
38 Marisol de la Cadena
kind of relations make it. Together these two concepts, disagreement and equivocation, may do work that each of them individually may not do; their joint analytic work may enable reflection about the complexity of the dispute expressed in Manuín’s statements. It may also expose a conflict located both within and beyond the domain of the rule of law.
Viveiros de Castro is a Brazilian anthropologist; “equivocation” is his concept to explain the mode of communication among Amerindian inhab- itants ( humans and not) in the Brazilian Amazon. Equivocation, he says, houses “the referential alterity between homonymic concepts” (Viveiros de Castro 2004, 5) with which the entities that populate Amerindian worlds communicate with—or translate to— each other. Crucial to the concept is, first, that these entities— which we would regard as humans or animals— consider themselves human and see their “ others” as animals; and, second, that what is results from the entities’ point of view, which in turn results from their bodies. The almost canonical example to illustrate equivocation is that of the differences between jaguar and human: what the former sees as beer, the latter sees as blood. The reason for the differences between their points of view resides in their diff er ent bodies; the difference is not con- ceptual, for both entities share the notions beer and blood. Therefore, com- munication, and even the preservation of one’s life, consists in “controlling” the equivocation (Viveiros de Castro 2004, 5) or understanding that while the concept (and therefore the understanding of the thing it refers to) may be shared, the thing itself may emerge as diff er ent if the concept is uttered by someone who is an other to the self in the interlocution. When equivocation is the mode of communication, concepts and things are only partially con- nected; the same word may refer to two diff er ent things depending on the world it is uttered from. In the case that concerns me here, territory may be both the piece of land that rests separate from the humans and the state that may have the right to it, and the entity that is with the Awajun Wampis— what territory is would depend on the world that is pronouncing the term, the relations that it emerges from.
Disagreement may have the appearance of an equivocation. Rancière, a phi los o pher of politics and aesthetics, conceptualizes disagreement as “the conflict between one who says white and another who also says white but does not understand the same thing by it.” Yet while equivocation assumes that all participants in the interlocution are speakers (and thus can name things that are conceptually the same and “objectively” diff er ent), the mis- understanding that provokes disagreement (à la Rancière) results from “a contention over what speaking means”; it is “a dispute over the object of
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
Uncommoning Nature 39
the discussion, and over the capacity of those who are making an object of it” (Rancière 1999, x, xi, xii). Moreover, as a po liti cal interruption to alter the conventional order and establish equality, disagreement is a dispute that confronts those who have (are granted) speech with those who do not have (are denied) speech—it is a dispute about the conventions that distribute capacities to define what is and how that is. Strug gles for civil rights in the Amer i cas would be an example of how disagreement established a new order of the perceptible. Thus, the difference between the two fellow con- cepts: equivocation is a misunderstanding in a relation among equals that are (i.e., ontologically) mutually other. The misunderstanding is an onto- logical relation; while the equivocation can be discerned (or controlled, to use Viveiros de Castro’s term), it is also an inevitable condition that cannot be changed. In contrast, disagreement pits socially unequal individuals in a dispute to be the same (or socially equivalent) and from such a position to name and define what the same should be; here the misunderstanding is po liti cal and reflects an epistemic dispute seeking to change how the estab- lished order is perceived. To put it differently, and perhaps more clearly in terms of the argument of this article, the misunderstanding in equivocation emerges when bodies that belong to diff er ent worlds use the same word to name entities that are not the same because they too, like the bodies that name them, belong to diff er ent worlds; disagreement results from misun- derstandings about the conditions for naming the same entities in a world that should be shared.
Impossible Politics, Silent War, and the “Anthropos- Not- Seen” Thinking through Rancière’s notion of disagreement, the “big event in Bagua” can be rendered as the eruption of politics: a historical event in which a subject emerges that disrupts the distribution of speech and the order it creates. In disagreement, this subject erupts in the established order (where he or she has no speech) to propose another distribution of the voices, ears, hands, and, ultimately, bodies that name what the French phi los o pher calls the perceptible. In the specific case of el Baguazo, the disagreement that the Awajun Wampis manifested would have interrupted the distribution of the speech that assigns the state sovereignty to decide about territory. Against it, the Awajun Wampis would have claimed their own sovereign voice. Under- stood as an extension of the country over which humans have the power of decision, the entity “territory” would have remained the same, and what and how it is would not be in dispute.
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
40 Marisol de la Cadena
Conceptualized instead as a disagreement that houses an equivocation, the conflict can also be interpreted as a dispute around an entity— territory— that is not the same and cannot be the diff er ent things that it may emerge as in interlocutions between Awajun Wampis and the state. Thinking through territory as equivocation, Manuín’s statements— and the trial from which they emerge— would also reflect a disagreement, the nature of which is on- tological. Thus, the equivocation would also be a po liti cal dispute aggravated by the condition of its impossibility, for neither the state nor the law is able— let alone equipped—to recognize the equivocation or the po liti cal dispute around it. I am calling this condition the anthropo- not- seen. I conceptu- alize it as the world- making pro cess through which heterogeneous worlds that do not make themselves through practices that ontologically separate humans (or culture) from nonhumans (or nature)— nor necessarily conceive as such the diff er ent entities in their assemblages— both are obliged into that distinction (and thus willfully destroyed) and exceed it. The anthropo- not- seen would thus be both the will that requires the distinction (and destroys what ever disobeys the obligation) and the excesses to that will: the collec- tives that, like the Awajun Wampis, are composed of entities that are not only human or nonhuman because they are also with what (according to the obligation) they should not be: humans with nonhumans, and the other way around.
The Anthropocene makes scholarly reference to the era when humans have become a geological force capable of planetary destruction. The “anthropo- not- seen” makes obvious reference to the term, and the suffix is equally obviously intended as a pun on - cene. However, the not- seen may be decep- tive, for in using it, my intention is not to evoke the invisible of a vis i ble realm under which it exists bearing the duress of power. In fact, the not- seen does not mainly refer to a regime of visibility. Rather, it aims to make reference to what is within a historically formulated hegemonic condition of impossibility, and hence, included in the anthropo- not- seen are antagonistic partners and their antagonistic relationship. On one hand, the anthropo- not- seen comprises the practices and prac ti tion ers of the will that granted itself the power to eradicate all that disobeyed mandates to be “ human” as modernity (in its early and late versions) sanctioned. On the other hand, it includes the disobedient prac ti tion ers of collectives composed of entities recalcitrant to classification (and individuation) as either human or nonhu- man. Complexly, the anthropo- not- seen includes both the anthropos that embodies the self- granted will to make the world as he or she knows it, and the disobedient anthropos, the one that is inherently-with- others and thus not
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
Uncommoning Nature 41
only human. Both inhabit the not- seen, yet they do so in antagonism: in the case of the first anthropos, what is not- seen (as such) is its constitutive will to destruction, which in turn cancels the possibility of disobedient beings and therefore makes for their not- seen condition. As an or ga nized pro cess of destruction— sometimes through benevolently offered assimilation— the anthropo- not- seen included, and continues to include, a silent war waged against entities and world- making practices that ignore the separation of entities into nature and culture.6
Dating from the early sixteenth century in what became the Amer i cas, the war was initially loud and clear; fighting for their God, Christian clerics walked the Andes from Colombia to Argentina and Chile, “extirpating idol- atries,” a po liti cal practice that the friars conceived against “devil- induced worship.” Extirpation required dividing the participating entities into God- made nature (mountains, rivers, forests) and naturales, or incipient humans with a soul still to be saved. The invention of modern politics secularized the antagonism: the war against the recalcitrance to distinguish nature from humanity was silenced; yet it continued in the name of pro gress and against backwardness, the evil that replaced the devil. Making it not- seen, war prac- tices included forms of making live. Inferior humans became the object of benevolent and inevitable inclusion, enemies that did not even count as enemies: the war was waged through silent means. This last phrase paraphrases Michel Foucault’s inversion of Carl von Clausewitz’s classic aphorism (“War is a continuation of politics through other means”): “Politics is the continu- ation of war by other means” (2003, 15). Unpacking the phrase, he explains, first, that the relations of force through which modern power works were established in and through war at a given historical moment; and, second, that while politics “pacifies” “it certainly does not do so in order to . . . neu- tralize the disequilibrium revealed by the last battle of the war”; but, third, that instead “the role of po liti cal power is perpetually to use a sort of silent war to reinscribe that relationship of force, and to inscribe it in institutions, economic inequalities, language, and even the bodies of individuals” (15–16). I tweak Foucault a bit to indicate, first, that the signature of the war that es- tablished modern power was its colonial will to destroy—or assimilate, which amounts to destruction yet has hegemonic potential— that which was not in its image and likeness; second, that the “last battle” is always ongoing; and, fi nally, that rather than being waged through politics, modern war may be a mechanism against the demand for politics posed by those collectives against whom the war is waged. When these collectives pose such a demand— when the disagreement around equivocations becomes public, and collectives
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
42 Marisol de la Cadena
press for recognition of that which the state cannot recognize— the silent war may translate into overt battle. The state would wage it in the name of the common good; disobedient collectives respond to defend their survival.
Extractivism or the End of the Silent War (and of the Not- Seen) Extractivism is a concept that circulates quite profusely in Latin Amer- i ca and that, quite literally, makes the Anthropocene materially pres ent as a human- geological force, while at the same time foregrounding its ar- ticulation through financial capital and in connection with infrastructural growth. This term is currently used in environmental circles in the region; critical contributors trace the start of extractivist practices back to Span- ish colonial mining (see Gudynas 2015; Bebbington 2015; Svampa 2015). The extraction of silver from the Cerro Rico de Potosí and Huancavelica (currently in Bolivia and Peru, respectively) is an infamous example of the death and destruction caused by the extraction of minerals for circulation in Iberian metropolitan markets. Guano, rubber, cotton, and sugar plantations and perforation for oil (mostly in coastal areas with access to small ports) followed in the late nineteenth century. Then, enabled by the construction of railways, the growth of ports in size and numbers, and the creation of a merchant naval industry, a great number of mines were opened throughout the twentieth century, attracting US and British capital. Throughout, these activities contributed to the general national income, to ecological “transfor- mation,” and to the death of populations ( needless to say, these were mostly indigenous and slaves of African origin).
Many features make extractivism a diff er ent venture compared to earlier (also extractive) practices. Some obvious ones are the corporate character of the practice; the worldwide ubiquity of the model and its interconnected- ness; the unpre ce dented rate of expansion of markets for minerals, oil, and energy; and the magnitude of new technologies that allow for quick and profitable extraction.
Former “tunnel mining”— the perforation of mountains following the vein of minerals— has been replaced by open pits that destroy mountains, creating crater- like formations that extend over hundreds of hectares and reach depths of more than a thousand meters.7 Multiple- well platforms have substantially increased the number of barrels and the speed of production, and relatively new technologies like inland and offshore fracking and the production of oil from tar sands are responsible for the unpre ce dented ter- ritorial expansion of oil extraction. The magnitude of the so- called environ-
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
Uncommoning Nature 43
mental impacts is also unpre ce dented. An example: between 2006 and 2011, Bolivia produced 5,600 tons of silver, which required the removal of more than 44 million tons of rocks (removing the rocks from where they were and then dumping them elsewhere is destructive). And while the tremendous amounts of water used in mining are not exactly destroyed, it becomes so full of contaminants that it is rendered useless for consumption by any living being. In the case of oil: fracking uses extraordinary amounts of water and releases large volumes of toxic and radioactive waste and dangerous air pol- lutants, and it thus affects bodies of all sorts in vast areas.8 Soybean and oil palm plantations (among others) join in the production of what Uruguayan biologist and politician Eduardo Gudynas has labeled “ecological amputa- tions” (2015, 25). The construction of infrastructure (necessary to market the resources) sponsored by central financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and new regional financial entities such as the Latin American Development Bank, enables the extraction to reach the remotest territories. All this propels what appears to be an unpre ce dentedly unstoppable and mighty removal of resources in these territories as they are also transformed into spaces for financial investment.
As im mense an ecological concern as it is, extractivism has become a central component of the economic strategies of all governments in the re- gion, left and right, without exception. Perhaps the only difference is that while the first, guided by a nationalist agenda, declare that they prefer to execute the extraction themselves, the latter have decidedly opened their ter- ritories to transnational corporations. Appropriation through Pollution is the subtitle Michel Serres (2011) gives to the little book in which he discusses the planetary ecological crisis we live with—to pollute is to possess; it is to exclude others from access to the resources that the polluter appropriates. And, of course, appropriation through pollution also kills those humans whom the destructive anthropos does not care to see— and therefore neither pollution nor deaths matter, for not infrequently (if implicitly), ecological am- putations are deemed necessary “geographies of sacrifice,” to adopt Valerie Kuletz’s (1998) phrase and adapt it to the ethos of extractivism. Accordingly, forms of life that continue to exist in the spaces from which resources can be extracted are disposable because those forms of life ought to have dis- appeared long ago. Moved by a well- funded race for pro gress and promoted by economic growth, the reach of the current destruction of indigenous worlds is historically unparalleled, and news about it is not exactly scarce; it takes no effort to learn about appalling incidents at any given time. Consider this commentary published on March 23, 2016, as I was writing this piece:
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
44 Marisol de la Cadena
it narrates the slow death of an indigenous group recognized in Colombia as the Wayúu at the hands of an infamous coal mine.
Every thing has been taken away from them. They have stolen their land, their water, even their names. . . . And the spoliation continues. The draught that burns them with thirst is neither nature’s whim, nor a consequence of global warming: it is that the great coal com pany from El Cerrejón, built the dam El Cercado, which the state inaugu- rated with great publicity, and it sucked the water for the needs of the im mense mine. The mine grows, and as it does, it evicts the Wayúus into the desert in La Guajira. [Before the dam] El Cerrejón had already diverted for its own ends the course of several streams that fed the Río Ranchería, and now it insists on building a new riverbed, thus taking the whole river away in order to reach the im mense coal deposits that lie under the water.9
Denunciations like the above find a public beyond the indigenous peoples whose life is at stake, and among those more generally concerned with the distribution of ecological conflicts and human rights. Digging a mountain to open a mine, drilling into the subsoil to find oil, damming all pos si ble rivers, and razing trees to build transoceanic roads and railroads are tools for the transformation of territories into grounds for investment— but extractiv- ism’s hegemony is hard to achieve. Extractivism has met a relentless opposi- tion that articulates, if in complex and irregular ways, unexpected alliances across the heterogeneous demands of a vast array of collectives. Centrally, in all its diverse complexity, the alliance defies the mono poly of the state and corporations to make, inhabit, and define nature— and, at times, the chal- lenge it poses touches states’ nerves, producing the feeling that sovereignty over the territories they rule is challenged and that their hopes for economic growth (founded on extractivism) are jeopardized. So far, the reaction of national states (from the left and the right) has been to waver between ac- cepting and rejecting their opponents’ demands for negotiation. When re- jection happens, what I have been calling the “ silent war” moves onto an open battlefield—in the name of pro gress, as always. The confrontation in 2009 in La Curva del Diablo is an emblematic event of the end of the silent war: those who oppose the transformation of universal nature into resources oppose the possibility of the common good as the mission of the nation- state and are thus the state’s enemies, deserving jail at the very least.
The alliance against extractivism is complex. Po liti cally relevant, it has a capacity to attract public attention opposing the participation of the state in
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
Uncommoning Nature 45
human rights violations and corporate ecological amputations; while per- formed through modern notions (environment, rights, biodiversity), the reality- making practices of the alliance continue the anthropo- not- seen. Yet the complexity does not end here— and following it up, we may find that the alliance deserves care. Defending themselves, the spokespersons of worlds experiencing destruction— this time at the hands of extractivism— have re- vealed their practices through tele vi sion stations and newspapers. Challeng- ing the legitimacy of the will to destroy, they have shared that nature or the environment— the matter of public concern—is not only such. Revelations of unimaginable beings and their destruction can be as ubiquitous as the war against those who oppose what the state considers (at least so far) its mission to provide for the common good. The one- world world that Chris tian ity and modernity collaboratively built and sustained is being challenged— perhaps at an unpre ce dented rate since its inauguration five hundred years ago. Here I propose that the moment the anthropo- not- seen, as the destruction of worlds, seems to have acquired a might and speed that early extirpators of idolatries and nineteenth- century explorers (turned rubber and sugar plan- tation investors) would envy is also the moment when, from the other side of the coin— the anthropo- not seen as worlds defending themselves against their destruction— stories emerge that may bring into existence a public that does not yet exist (Warner 2005). Thus, even if what becomes public is a translation into environmental and human rights concerns, the denuncia- tions (and the alliances that make them pos si ble) offer a possibility for onto- logical openings that deserves attention.
Stories from the Anthropo- Not- Seen
We need stories (and theories) that are just big enough to gather up the complexities and keep the edges open and greedy for
surprising new and old connections.
— DONNA HARAWAY, “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin”
Analogous to the Awajun Wampis people’s claim of being their ancestral ter- ritories, and their assertion of kinship with the forest, in a dispute about petroleum extraction at a site called Vaca Muerta (Argentina), a Mapu- che group wrote in a communiqué, “Our territories are not ‘resources’ but lives that make the Ixofijmogen [life of all lives] of which we are part, not its
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
46 Marisol de la Cadena
owners.”10 In contrast, this is how Vaca Muerta is defined by developers from Neuquén, one of the provinces included in the hydrocarbon deposit at issue: “Vaca Muerta is an im mense páramo [a barren cold plateau]. A desert that extends beyond what the eyes can see. . . . It is a hostile territory that shelters enough energy to make Argentina self- sufficient and even export gas and oil to the world.”11 The stark contrast between these statements suggests that the public dispute is not only about petroleum extraction. The Mapuche decla- ration reveals the inherent relationality between the entities that compose Ixofijmogen, which therefore cannot be easily divided into territory and the resources extracted from it. What the oil com pany enacts as nature and humans, the Mapuche do not only enact as such.12 Their interruption of the hegemonic partition is a po liti cal worlding event that is also conceptual: it performs an ontological opening into that partition that makes pos si ble the enactment of humans with nature. This condition (which is not simply a mix of humans and nature) makes each more than just one of them. What is more, entities may emerge as materially specific to (and through) the re- lation that inherently connects them. An example from my own work in the Andes of Cuzco: runakuna (the local Quechua word for people) with tirakuna (earth beings, entities that are also— yet not only— mountains) are together in complex materiality and liveliness as they jointly fabricate place and are fabricated by it (de la Cadena 2014, 2015); in contrast, the materiality in and of the relation between modern lively humans and inert mountains makes them distinct from each other.13
Runakuna with earth beings are, of course, not a requirement of the pro- cesses that have emerged to question the universality of the partition of the sensible into nature and humans. Here is another example: In the northern Andes of Peru, a mining corporation plans to drain several lagoons to ex- tract copper and gold from some, and to drain mineral waste in others. In exchange, reservoirs with a water capacity several times that of the lagoons would be built. Opposing the plan, environmentalists argue that the reser- voirs will destroy the ecosystem of which the lagoons are part: a landscape made of agricultural land, high- altitude wetlands, cattle, humans, trees, crops, creeks, and springs. The local population adds that the lagoons are local life: their plants, animals, soils, trees, and families are with that spe- cific water, which cannot be translated into water from reservoirs, not even if, as the mining corporation promises, they would provide more water. It would not be the same water; to defend it, they have or ga nized themselves as “guardians of the lagoons.” Many guardians have died in this defense, mak- ing public another instance of the war against those who oppose the transla-
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
Uncommoning Nature 47
tion of nature into resources. Yet the guardians of the lagoons have never said that the water is a being; what they say is that it is local water: the water with which they, their plants, their animals, and, ultimately, “their natures” are. As such, it is untranslatable to H2O and cannot be used for the general common good. Rather, transpiring through local bodies ( human and other- than- human), through the po liti cal practice of its guardians, the water from these lagoons emerges as it emplaces entities and makes itself uncommon nature, or nature already occupied by local bodies and therefore unavailable for transformation into the state or the corporation’s interests if they do not coincide with those of their bodies.
This lagoon water, and the “nature” it is, is a complex boundary object in this conflict. On one side, nature is half of a dualism; on the other, encom- passing human and other- than- human heterogeneities, nature is an almost meaningless term. Complexly, then, lagoon water is itself not only natu ral, and nature is not only Nature.14 The politics that it— the lagoon water— proposes are equally complex and elude the kind of either-or analyses that require on- tological agreement about what is.
An iconic guardian of the lagoons is a peasant woman whose plots the corporate mining proj ect wants to buy to fully legalize its access to the territories it plans to excavate. The woman, whose name is Máxima Acuña, refuses to sell— and prob ably for an amount of money that she would other- wise not ever see in her lifetime. Countless times, the national police force, hired by the mine, has destroyed the family’s crops and attacked her and her children and even her animals; influenced by the mine, several judiciary courts have ruled against the woman. She has also won some legal battles: as I wrote this piece, a judiciary court ordered the national police force to pro- tect the woman and her family from the mine. The woman’s plots have been under siege for more than three years now. “I fight to protect the lagoon” has been one of her responses. And, asserting attachment to place, she adds, “I am not going to stop; they will dis appear me. But I will die with the land” (personal communication).
Her refusal to sell is incomprehensible to the dominant market- oriented rationality. It may also remind us of similarities between Máxima and Bar- tleby, the scrivener in Herman Melville’s ([1853] 2007) story, whose refusal to do as requested by those who surrounded him has provoked numerous philosophical musings.15 Bartleby says that he “would prefer not to” do as his superiors ask. Because the requests seem logical and because the scrivener does not explain why he “prefers not to,” he drives his superiors crazy. Simi- larly, Máxima’s refusal to sell has driven more than one person crazy: she
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
48 Marisol de la Cadena
prevents the mining com pany from accomplishing their goal. Yet she is not necessarily agrammatical, at least not in the sense of disengagement from the social that Gilles Deleuze (1998) accords to Bartleby’s agrammaticality.
Through the lens of modern politics (and using the grammar that sepa- rates humans and universal nature), we can interpret this woman’s actions as defending the ecosystem: an environmentalist, and thus an enemy or an ally, depending on who speaks. Driven to exasperation, supporters of the reservoirs (and also “rational” politicians) see her as a cunning manipulator awaiting a better price for her plot; to those on the other side of the po liti- cal spectrum— the complexity of which I will explain and where I include myself— she is a hero willing to sacrifice herself to prevent ecological dam- age.16 In the language of both detractors and supporters, she is a subject in relation to an object— and thus perfectly grammatical as she acts in response to conditions imposed on her. However, the “refusal to sell” may include an- other relation: one from which woman- land- lagoon (or plants- rocks- soils- animals- lagoons- humans- creeks— canals!!!) emerge inherently together: an entanglement of entities needy of each other in such a way that pulling them apart would transform them into something else.17 Refusing to sell may also refuse the grammar that transforms the entities into individual bodies, units of nature or the environment, which when they are part of each other, they are not. Thus analyzed, Máxima’s refusal would be the act of a private thinker, one who thinks with her own forces (see Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 62) to enact a locally ecologized nature (entities interdependent on each other) that si mul ta neously coincides with, differs from, and even exceeds (also because it includes humans) the object that the state, the mining cor- poration, and the environmentalists translate into resources to be exploited or defended. Carving out “a kind of foreign language within language” (De- leuze 1998, 72), she also makes herself agrammatical to the subject and ob- ject relation and to the social thus made. Her response is driven by a logic that exceeds both that of profit and gain, and that of the environment and its defense. In this sense, Máxima’s response might be like Bartleby’s formula as proposed by Deleuze: a response that exceeds any known or expected logic, one that may muddle any attributed social position, while at the same time self- asserting composite positions that communicate with usual grammars and at the same time open them up to other possibilities.
If she is an environmentalist— and I think she is— she is not only an envi- ronmentalist. Defending herself, and also going beyond herself, she declares her stewardship of the lagoons and all that their waters are and allow— and she does that in more than one way. She confronts the mine by arguing that
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
Uncommoning Nature 49
the land is her property— she even shows the legal documents that prove her owner ship. However, when Máxima explains how her being with the land is impossible to detach or break apart, how their being together is through/ with crops, rain, soil, animals— entities that make/are the relation— her ex- planation, I propose, exceeds the limits of the property concept, where she nevertheless also meets the mine in the confrontation. She stays because she is by staying; that this reads like a redundancy marks the agrammaticality of the woman’s decision. When I asked why she stayed (as many others have done before me, and I am sure after), she replied, “What can I be if I am not this? [And the word “place” is not uttered— instead, she stomps her feet.] This is who I am, how can I go? I will die [The word “ here” is not uttered.] who I am, with my bones I will be [Once again “ here” is not uttered.] like I am now.” Of course we can read her sentences through a habitual subject and object grammar, which I have suggested with the words in brackets; but the need for the brackets— the nonutterances in Máxima’s answers are not blanks to be filled— also suggests that there is not only one grammar in her refusal to sell the land that the mine wants. Because we do not need help with our habits, I remark on the unusual.
Not only is a phrase that we (scholars or not) frequently use in our analy- sis— I have already used it in several paragraphs above. I learned to give this phrase conceptual status from conversations with Mariano Turpo, a friend with whom I collaborated on the ideas that came into a book I published not long ago (de la Cadena 2015). A Quechua speaker and a commuter across some of the worlds that make our country (Peru), he would insist that what to me was (or the thing that was to me, for example, a moun- tain or an archive) was not only that. And what it not only was, I had no figure or form for until it became that to me—or until, through laborious and patient practice, I was able to work my thought out of the habit of need- ing to grasp (many times barely) the entity or the practice. Grasping what was “not only” what emerged through my habitual practice of thought, in addition to taking time, required working at a permanent interface where Mariano’s worlding practices and mine were both seemingly alike and at the same time diff er ent (de la Cadena 2014, 2015). And what emerged at the interface, rather than “the” entity or practice in question, was a mutual “redescription” (Strathern 1988) of each other’s (Mariano’s and mine) con- cepts, forms, or figures in ways that always exceeded each other, even as they also overlapped. Drawing from this ethnographic- conceptual experience, I propose to think Máxima’s refusal to leave through the notion of property (and its relations) and also through what may be not only property and the
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
50 Marisol de la Cadena
relations (or lack thereof ) that may emerge to make her (with- those- she-is). Considering both relations si mul ta neously, their mutual excesses may also be considered. I explain more below.
Concepts do their work in an ecol ogy. They perform with the concepts they find themselves in the com pany of (Strathern 2011, 23)— and when Máxima practices her refusal to leave, “property” may emerge as a concept- multiple as she switches from becoming with “land” to legally defending herself vis- à- vis the corporation’s attempt to evict her. The first, “becoming with land,” exceeds the legal notion of property and emerges at its limit (i.e., when the legal concept is not anymore). “Refusing to leave” may be moti- vated by an ideological rejection of the mine’s desire to destroy lagoons, and it may also be a practice that defies commensuration—it renders land unoc- cupiable by the market, for it is integrally occupied by and occupying “the woman who will not leave.” This last phrase— which circulates mostly in oral commentary— indicates Máxima’s inconceivable defiance to the mine and may also translate her agrammaticality: the enactment of a relation that modern property cannot sustain. This would include her capacity to become with the collective: the human guardians of the lagoons but also the other- than- human entities they guard. Intriguingly, her lawyer— also a woman and acquainted with the practices of the guardians of the lagoons— understands this and, with it, her own inability to fully translate into the legal language of property Máxima’s insistence on staying. In one of the many interviews Máxima has given, she mentions that a “com pany man” (un hombre de la compañía) threatened her, saying, “A flea will never defeat an elephant.”18 Belying that refrain, “the woman who will not leave” has gone to trial and with the help of her lawyer has defeated the mining corporation on at least two occasions. Explaining these women’s success, pundits in central news media emulate the “com pany man” and express their surprise in narratives that liken the fight to that of David against Goliath. Indeed, there is a public for this story; what is not public in this undoubtedly surprising story is that the concepts that the flea and the elephant (or David and Goliath) employ are both the same and not only the same.
Along with surprise, complexity is relentless in this story: Máxima’s lawyer, a woman of impeccable professional ethics and astute professional practice, both trusts the veracity of the titles that represent the woman’s owner ship to the land and is convinced that the mine is using fraudulent tactics to discredit those documents— yet she also thinks that Máxima’s will to stay on the land exceeds legal argumentation. In a recent work, Isabelle Stengers writes, “What is proper to every event is that it brings the future
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
Uncommoning Nature 51
that will inherit from it into communication with a past narrated differ- ently” (2015, 390). If we attend to Máxima’s refusal to sell as an excess to modern property (rather than as a mining conflict that can be solved so that all can go back to normal), she may also be inscribing an event: she may be creating a refuge for life (including rocks and water and much more, for without them life is not) away from the destruction on which what currently passes for pro gress is predicated. She may be creating possibilities for an alternative future, one that, inheriting from Máxima’s stubbornness to stay and defend life, would be able to narrate the past— that is, our pres ent—in a diff er ent way.
A Hopeful Ending: Uncommoning Nature or a Commons through Divergence
Máxima’s story, like those of the Mapuches, the Awajun Wampis, and runa- kuna, is a story from the anthropo- not- seen; while such stories seem to occur everywhere, the events are local. Told attending to place, the narratives may expose complexities that unsettle linear grammars and push concepts to their limits. Listened to with care, they reveal that the conflicts they nar- rate may include a disagreement that cannot find easy resolution because it exceeds the existing domain of the rule of law, namely, the conception and regulation of nature as resources. If we consider (rather than deny) the possibility of excess— namely, the assertion that nature is not only such, or that the materials that make it are also specific to place and may include humans— these stories could open thought and feeling to that which is not only what to our common senses is. The requirement for this opening may be a disposition to give equivocation a po liti cal chance. This means a dis- position to consider that what is hegemonically— for example, nature (to continue with the same theme)— may also be other than nature even if it occupies the same space: not only a river, also a person; not only universal water, also local water; not only mountains, also earth beings; not only land, also Ixofijmogen.19
In the pages that follow, I conclude this intervention with a speculation about the composition of a po liti cal alliance that welcomes agreements that accept the possibility of equivocation, not agreements made across diff er- ent viewpoints about the same world, but those made taking into consider- ation that the viewpoints may correspond to worlds that are not only the same. I speculate using the story of the guardians of the lagoons that Máxima’s recalcitrance has made famous, and fruitfully hopeful. It illustrates Donna
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
52 Marisol de la Cadena
Haraway’s wish for stories “just big enough to gather up complexities and leave edges open for surprising new connections” (Haraway 2015, 160) to happen.
Confronted with the mining com pany’s proposal to desiccate the lagoons, a heterogeneous network of environmentalists has backed the local guard- ians against the mining corporation. The cartoon I include here reflects the alliance: a participant in the alliance, the cartoon’s author mocks the corpo- ration’s efforts to convince a rational peasant family who, confronted with the choice between finite money and long- lasting land, uses a subject and object grammar and economic benefit logic to reasonably choose the latter (figure 1.1). Similarly, through a global extension of this network, Máxima received the Goldman Environmental Prize, a highly impor tant award hon- oring grassroots leaders.20 These alliances are, however, complex. Occupying the same space (which “cannot be mapped in terms of a single set of three- dimensional coordinates”; Mol and Law 2002, 1), heterogeneous forms (uni- versal nature, the environment, water that resists translation to H2O, land that is object and not, entities that I am calling ecologized nature—or nature
FIGURE 1.1. Complex alliances against extractivism: The man driving the excavator says to the peasant family, “You are poor. If you sell your mountain and your
lagoon to me, you will have money.” The peasant family replies, “Once the money is spent, we will have neither mountain nor lagoon.” The man responds, “Ignorant!!”
Diario La República (Lima), July 16, 2012. Used by permission of artist Carlos Tovar Samanez, also known as Carlín.
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
Uncommoning Nature 53
recalcitrant to universality) converge in the network through agreements that do not preclude differences. For example, in comparison to the car- toonist’s depiction, the economic security of her family may not figure as definitely in Máxima’s refusal to sell; yet they share a support for not sell- ing.21 Similarly, the interest that environmentalists and the guardians of the lagoons share—to defend nature, or the environment— may be not only the same interest: the locally ecologized nature of the guardians and the biologi- cally defined nature of (global and national) environmental activists may indeed exceed each other as it is not only the same nature. However, both cases house the possibility for an agreement that, rather that converging on identical interests, would be underpinned by “uncommonalities”: interests in common that are not the same interest. This agreement speaks of the possibility for an alternative alliance, one that along with coincidences may include the parties’ constitutive divergence: they may converge without be- coming the same. Such an agreement could include discussion about the one- world world as an ontological condition that participants in the alliance do not share homogeneously and that, consequently, may be a source of fric- tion among them.22
Underpinned by terms that could alter politics as usual, this alliance would also house hope for a commons that does not require the division between universal nature and diversified humans. A commons constantly emerging from the uncommons as grounds for po liti cal negotiation of what (resulting from the latter) would become the interest in common, and thus the commons. This commons (always ephemeral and subject to change) would not be without uncommons: rather than (only) the expression of shared relations and stewardship of nature, this commons would (also) be the expression of a worlding of many worlds ecologically related across their constitutive divergence. As a practice of life that takes care of interests in common, without requiring that these be the same interest, the alliance between environmentalists and local guardians (of lagoons, rivers, forests) could engage in (and become through) a conversation that considers the hegemony of the ontological distribution of the world into universal nature and locally differentiated humans without, however, considering such a distri- bution a requirement. The alliance would thus express a confrontation with the agreement that made the anthropo- not- seen and would question the legitimacy of the war against those who disagree with that distribution. The partition of the world into diversified humans and homogeneous nature— or, rather, and more radically, the making of the world into one through the imposition of the homogeneity of such a partition— could become a matter
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
54 Marisol de la Cadena
of po liti cal concern. Thus, the ontological sameness that modern politics requires could be questioned, and along with it a novel consequence would be inaugurated: disagreement concerning ways of world making (i.e., on- tological politics) could even take place among those who share ontological sameness (i.e., those who world in similar ways). Illustrative of this possibil- ity is the disagreement between the mining corporation that wants to evict “the woman who does not want to leave” and the lawyer who defends her. The alliance between the two women is the other side of the same coin. In an alliance across worlds that are not only the same, what brings them together is an interest in common that is not the same interest: their interests mutu- ally exceed each other’s, as the two women converge in a complex notion of property— one that upholds their divergent ways of being with water, land, animals—to contend with the mine.23
Similar unexpected alliances may have emerged as extractivism, stimu- lated by the prices of minerals and neoliberal policies, became apparently unstoppable and accelerated the definition of nature as resources, which it also makes ubiquitous. The paradox could be that the ruthlessness of extractivism has made public collectives that oppose the (extractivist) de- struction of who they are (and not only of nature) making alliances with environmentalists (for whom nature may be only nature). Extractivism is the trope through which the Anthropocene makes itself pres ent in Latin Amer i ca, and like on the planetary scale, it threatens with the destruction of what makes it pos si ble, ending with the gradual annihilation of life itself. Seen through extractivism (including the opposition to it), the Anthro- pocene might be a historical moment of implosion, when the war against disobedient worlding practices turned against the world that waged it and, in so doing, also revealed the impossibility of the destruction of worlds that exceeded, first, the word of God and, later on, the word of the mod- ern human— cap i tal ist and socialist alike. Defending themselves against the current destruction, the collectives that exceed the divides between “ human” and “non- human” have become vis i ble, manifesting their excess. The re sis tance to the not- seen war erupts in public, excessive collectives asserting their being and demanding politics beyond the rights the state might (or might not) benevolently grant through culture. A far cry from being a “conflict as usual,” their disagreement with the state may be about territorial sovereignty, and not only about that. It may express the public demand to allow in politics conditions of “no nature, no culture” (Strathern 1980) that have been historically denied being. The silence that cloaked the war against disobedient worlding practices may be coming to an end; their
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
Uncommoning Nature 55
destruction (and the fight against it) can be ubiquitously seen on all types of screens. Paradoxically, the era of the Anthropocene may witness the his- torical end of the not- seen.
Notes I am grateful for comments by Judy Farquhar, Cristiana Giordano, Stefanie Graeter, John Law, Casper Bruun Jensen, and Brit Winthereik.
1. Contribution by Mia Mayixuan Li, September 29, 2016, http:// www . rainforestfoundation . org / 53 - indigenous - leaders - in - perus - 2009 - baguazo - acquitted - of - all - charges / Rainforest Foundation.
2. Santiago Manuin Valera, “Red Cooperacción,” April 16, 2014, http:// www . cooperaccion . org . pe / noticias / 10 - noticias / 2140 - pronunciamiento - de - santiago - manuin - contra - la - peticion - de - cadena - perpetua - contra - su - persona.
3. Santiago Manuin Valera, “Red Cooperacción,” April 16, 2014, http:// www . cooperaccion . org . pe / noticias / 10 - noticias / 2140 - pronunciamiento - de - santiago - manuin - contra - la - peticion - de - cadena - perpetua - contra - su - persona.
4. Los Sucesos de Bagua, http:// www . servindi . org / producciones / videos / 13083. Also quoted in de la Cadena 2010, 363.
5. Servindi, Comunicación intercultural para un mundo más humano y diverso, “Para Perico La territorialidad no era sólo un concepto,” Video Audio de Shapiom Noningo, January 29, 2016, http:// www . servindi . org / actualidad - noticias - radioteca - videos / 29 / 01 / 2016 / para - perico - la - territorialidad - no - era - solo - un.
6. In a similar vein, Bruno Latour (2002, 25, 26, 27) conceptualizes these wars as “latent,” “never declared,” “considered simple police operations.”
7. For example, Chuquicamata, a copper mine in Chile, extends over eight hundred hectares and has a depth of 1,250 meters (Gudynas 2015).
8. One of the greatest current fracking threats in South Amer i ca is located in the Entre Ríos region of Argentina and the neighboring area of Uruguay, in the Paraná Chaco, where the extraction of shale oil and shale gas is planned. In Santiago Navarro and Renata Bessi, “Fracking Expands in Latin Amer i ca Threatening to Contaminate World’s Third Largest Aquifer,” December 11, 2015, http:// www . alternet . org / fracking / fracking - expands - latin - america - threatening - contaminate - worlds - third - largest - aquifer.
9. Antonio Caballero, “Miseria artificial,” Arcadia, March 23, 2016, http:// www . revistaarcadia . com / opinion / columnas / articulo / antonio - caballero - escribe - sobre - la - guajira - y - saqueo - a - los - indigenas - wayuu / 47708.
10. Puerta E Red Eco, “Vaca Muerta una situación Urgente que no da para más,” Argenpress, Info Prensa Argentina para todo el mundo, October 7, 2014, http:// www . argenpress . info / 2014 / 10 / vaca - muerta - una - situacion - urgente - que . html.
11. “Un viaje a las entrañas de Vaca Muerta, el future energético del país,” March 7, 2015, Misiones Online, http:// misionesonline . net / 2015 / 03 / 07 / un - viaje - a - las - entranas - de - vaca - muerta - el - futuro - energetico - del - pais / .
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
56 Marisol de la Cadena
12. I have explained this in other works. When persons live across more than one, less than many worlds, their practices may enact entities that are not only what they also are. For example, across the world of mining and the world of earth beings, the latter may emerge also as mountains and not only as earth beings (or vice versa of course.) See de la Cadena (2010) and (2015). John Law (2015) calls this the capacity for both- and (rather than either- or).
13. As runakuna and earth beings become together as place, they embody the ma- teriality of human and geological bodies and exceed it. Their liveliness (see Tsing, this volume) is an intrarelation, a mutual enactment that does not depend on the human only as being such— only human—it is not a runakuna condition. Rather, closer to what Anna Tsing suggests could be a modern analytical mode of attention, runakuna are attuned to the ways of earth beings (which includes soil, water, pebbles, and rocks that are not only such) but also vice versa: they are together (and with plants and animals). And this differs from Tsing’s proposal.
14. “Boundary object” is a term coined by Star and Griesemer (1989)— I thank Judy Farquhar for conversations that fed this paragraph.
15. See also Harvey and Knox (2015) for a similar description of an Andean Bartleby. 16. One article that portrays her as a manipulator is Ricardo Uceda, “El Pantanoso
caso Chaupe,” La República, February 24, 2015, http:// larepublica . pe / 24 - 02 - 2015 / el - pantanoso - caso - chaupe.
17. Another example of a similar relational materiality: peasants in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (Oaxaca, Mexico) have rejected the installation of windmills, which would transform the relationship between air, birds, ocean water, fish, and people (Howe and Boyer 2015).
18. Máxima Acuña, “Me dijeron: Una pulga nunca le va a ganar a un elefante,” Mamágrande Films, posted October 16, 2013, 7 mins., https:// www . youtube . com / watch ? v=5dFm5JuUz1A.
19. “Divergence”— the final word of the subhead above—is a notion I borrow from Stengers (2005). It refers to the constitutive difference that makes practices what they are and as they connect across difference, even ontological difference.
20. Máxima Acuña, “Galardonada del Goldman Environmental Prize 2016 para Sur y Centroamérica” (Goldman Environmental Prize), April 19, 2016, 5.30 mins., http:// www . goldmanprize . org / recipient / maxima - acuna / .
21. For example, in a recent interview Máxima declared, “I’d rather not have money. My land makes me happy, money does not.” Máxima Acuña interviewed by Joseph Zárate, Revista Etiqueta Negra, April 24, 2015, http:// etiquetanegra . com . pe / articulos / maxima - acuna - la - dama - de - la - laguna - azul - versus - la - laguna - negra.
22. The argument that the one- world world is heterogeneously shared is one of the main ideas in Law (2015). What I add here is that the alliance houses the possibility for the discussion of this condition.
23. Penny Harvey (this volume) examines the vitality of none other than concrete, an exemplar of what a “material” might be, and using it to think with the material of “the woman who will not leave” may seem far- fetched. However, the politics of the guardians of the lagoons, in step with the invitation that this volume makes, compli-
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
Uncommoning Nature 57
cate distinctions between human and material politics. Thus, I want to propose an in- terpretation of the alliance between Máxima and her lawyer that is similar to Harvey’s analy sis of the vitality of concrete, which, she explains, is composed as its intrinsic components combine with conditions that extend beyond concrete. Analogously, the alliance between Máxima and her lawyer against the corporation takes into consid- eration the separation between humans and nature that the law requires; yet their nonseparation also needs to be seriously considered as an intrinsic component in the negotiation between the two women.
References Bebbington, Anthony. 2015. “Po liti cal Ecologies of Resource Extraction: Agendas
pendientes.” Eu ro pean Review of Latin American and Ca rib bean Studies 100 (De- cember): 85–98.
de la Cadena, Marisol. 2010. “Indigenous Cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual Reflections beyond ‘Politics.’ ” Cultural Anthropology 25, no. 2: 334–370.
de la Cadena, Marisol. 2014. “Runa: Human but Not Only.” hau: Journal of Ethno- graphic Theory 4, no. 2: 253–259.
de la Cadena, Marisol. 2015. Earth Beings: Ecologies of Practice across Andean Worlds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles. 1998. Essays Critical and Clinical. New York: Verso. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 1994. What Is Philosophy? New York: Columbia
University Press. Foucault, Michel. 2003. “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France
1975–1976. New York: Picador. Greene, Shane. 2009. “Making Old Histories New in the Peruvian Amazon.” Anthro-
pology Now 1, no. 3: 52–60. Gudynas, Eduardo. 2015. Extractivismos: Ecología, economía y política de un modo de
entender el desarrollo y la naturaleza. La Paz: Centro de Documentación e Infor- mación Bolivia.
Haraway, Donna. 2015. “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin.” Environmental Humanities 6: 159–165.
Harvey, Penelope, and Hannah Knox. 2015. Roads: An Anthropology of Infrastructure and Expertise. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Howe, C., and D. Boyer. 2015. “Aeolian Politics.” Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 16, no. 1: 31–48. http:// dx . doi . org / 10 . 1080 / 1600910X . 2015 . 1022564.
Kuletz, Valerie. 1998. The Tainted Desert: Environmental and Social Ruin in the Ameri- can West. New York: Routledge.
Latour, Bruno. 2002. War of the Worlds: What about Peace? Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Law, John. 2015. “What’s Wrong with a One- World World?” Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 16, no. 1: 126–139.
Melville, Herman. (1853) 2007. Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street. London: Hesperus.
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
58 Marisol de la Cadena
Mol, Annemarie, and John Law. 2002. Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Rancière, Jacques. 1999. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minneapolis: Univer- sity of Minnesota Press.
Serres, Michel. 2011. Malfeasance: Appropriation through Pollution? Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Star, Susan Leigh, and James Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecol ogy, ‘Translations,’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Verte- brate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science 19, no. 4: 387–420.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “Introductory Notes on an Ecol ogy of Practices.” Cultural Studies Review 11, no. 1: 183–196.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2015. In Catastrophic Times: Resisting the Coming Barbarism. London: Open Humanities Press/Meson Press. http:// openhumanitiespress . org / books / titles / in - catastrophic - times.
Strathern, Marilyn. 1980. “No Nature, No Culture: The Hagen Case.” In Nature, Culture and Gender, edited by Carol MacCormack and Marilyn Strathern, 174–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strathern, Marilyn. 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Prob lems with Women and Prob lems with Society in Melanesia Studies in Melanesian Anthropology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Strathern, Marilyn. 2011. “Sharing, Stealing and Borrowing Si mul ta neously.” In Owner ship and Appropriation, edited by Veronica Strang and Mark Busse, 23–42. Oxford: Berg.
Svampa, Maristella. 2015. “Commodities Consensus: Neoextractivism and Enclosure of the Commons in Latin Amer i ca.” South Atlantic Quarterly 114, no. 1: 65–82.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 2004. “Perspectival Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Equivocation.” Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Low- land South Amer i ca 2, no. 1: 3–22.
Warner, Michael. 2005. Publics and Counterpublics. Brooklyn, NY: Zone Books.
Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
9. D
uk e
U ni
ve rs
ity P
re ss
. A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
