permanent exercise in the decolonization of thought, and a Props for another means baer psp forthe canon of concepts, But in the end, anthropology is what is at stake. The inten- tion behind this tour through our recent pac is in effect far mor ‘prospective than nostalgic, the aspiration being to avaleen cer posibilities and glimpse a breakin the elouds through which cur discipline could imagine, at least for itself qua intellectual project, a denouement (co dramatize things a bid) ocher than mere death by asphyxia, 48 Chapter Two Perspectivism ‘Sach a requalifcation of the anthropological agenda was what Tania Stolze Lima and I wanted to contebute to when we pro- posed the concept of Amerindian penpeciviom as the reconfigu- {ation of « complex of ideas and practices whose power of intel Iectual disturbance has never been sufficiency appreciated (even if hey found the word selevane) by Americanists, despite its vast diffusion in the New World To this we added the synoptic con- ‘expt of muktinaturaliom, which presented Amerindian thought as an unsuspected partner a dark precursor if you will, of certain ‘contemporary philosophical programs, like drose developing around theories of possible worlds, others that refuse to operace avithin the vicious dichotomies of modernity, or stil others that, hhaving registered the end of che hegemony ofthe kind of ctique ‘dar demands an epistemological response to every ontological question, ae slowly defining new lines of fight for thought un- der the rallying vies of transcendental empiccism and speculative realism, "The two concepts emerged following an analysis ofthe costuo- logical presuppositions of tthe metaphysics of predation” evoked 5 Fore di raion fhe Tn See Lim “Uh To ade Mae Anos on Ponsa in Tana Comal” (19991396, end Ome Ode ‘foie 0 Po Tarps 205s Vie de Casto “Canalo {GiDeat an Amerindian Ppt? (998 espero emanating ‘ats ign 20023), Peper scion and he No of Cold queen” 20049, nd “Eengng especie The Ttmatn of Obes | iijenrin herds Coes AH) nh lower sod {saps fm tho arse kor he seh cb wich ‘ik wile oe bing nied 49in the last chapter, We found that this metaphysics, as ean be eluced from Lés Straus summary of reaches is highest pression in che strong speculative yield of those indigenous cate. fore denoting mation! alle, phenomena tht Tani with yet another concept: virtual affinity.” Vietal afiniy is the whanatim share oat eo won hae aed the “Ocher-structure™ of Amerindian worlds and is indelibly aed by cain, whichis an omnipresent maui in het inhabitant’ relational imagination. Interspecific perspectivism, ‘tologial multsatwalism and cannibal seri ths fort he thee ape ofan indigenous akernhvopoogy thatthe sme ‘merical and reverse transformation of Occidental anthropolo- fas symmectical in Larour's sense as itis reverse in the sense ‘of Wagnet’s “reverse anthropology” By drawing this wiangle, we «an enter into che exbit of one of the philosophies of “the exotic peoples” that Lévi-Strauss opposed to ours and artempt in other ‘words, to realize something of the imposing program outlined in the fourth chapter, “Geophilosophy.” of What ls Pbilecophy? «ven if it will be at the price—but one we should always be eady ‘0 pay—ofa certain methodological imprecision and intentional ambiguity ooo Our work’ perfectly contingent poiat of departure was the sud- den pesception ofa resonance between the results of our research con Amazonian cosmopoltes-—on its notion of a perspectvit multiplicity intrinsic ro che real and a well-knowa parable on the subject of the conquest of the Americans recountad by Lévi Strauss in Race and History ta the Grea Anil some yar afer the dscovery of Americ, wii he Spans see ou inet commana eas ther ornate ates ha aoa te ate er eng tig ding ef he hr ae a oh fn ath whether oro ther opus wersja wane (L-S. 1978b[1952]: 329) . : 10. Vows de Cao 2001; 20028 Se law, cape 1, Dee 1908 50 | | | In ths confi bexcen the svo andropoogis the author per ceived a acogue allegory ofthe fac that one ofthe pial nan fraons of aman natures the negation of own gene ‘kindof congenital aries preventing the exension of the red ites of homaniy to the species 2s whole apears to Be one oft pas atm choco sl i wee fens, of which perhaps es jst he appereepive momen fhe bo disrbuted thing inthe work. The format of telson {fama ut that doesnot lesen sng, Overestimatingones tom humanity tothe dewimene of the eonempable odes teas onc deep resemblance with it Since the othe of te Same {efthe Europese) shows isl to be she same asthe Othe’ othe, {ofthe indigenous, he Same ends up unviingy showing self tober sane he Other, Th auc Enda LS oh fr i eaten Ter Tiga Bu there added a mpplementary, ffonic ewist, chs cime noting a difference (cher than thi 1 Semblane) beaween dhe prs. While the Europeans led om the soil sence fn their Investigations ofthe amanity ofthe ter she Tans placed thei fat n the ata scence and srhere ue farmer prolimed she Indians wo be animal the ater Were content o uses the ores might beg, “Boch stn thon eqal ignorance” LevStsy concluded bu the Indians behavior ern had greater dignin” (1992: 76) I this ele Ip how thing raepire, i fone ust conclude dha, dete Bring jar a ignorant othe sujet ofthe othe, che ott oF the Other was not excl the same asthe other ofthe Same, We could even sy tat eas iseact oppo ot for the fae hat the ration berwen these ovo others of huranty—anialey and dviigy—is conceived in indigenous worlds comply diferent ems than thse we have inhered fom Christe ‘he rhetorical contast LéveStrase deo succeeds becuse ns” Thnk: About Capen Cook, 12 As Maal Sein ore Haw me angle (1995), dhe ssc cola oer will diy plesabeon evel in des snes eee he Moder ad nna opt, sy nich ‘nae sbowt wh de Int hot abot diy has soa a hy acho Evrepeinnes or madly. 31pps to or cosmological hierarchies rather than those of the In any case, consideration ofthis disequilibrium was what led 4s to the hypothesis thar Amerindian ontological regimes diverge from chose widespread in the West preciscly with regard to the inverse semiotic functions they respectively atibute to soul and body. The marked dimension for the Spanish was the soul where- a the Indian crphasized the bly. The Europeans never doubt. sd thar the Indians had bodies—animals have them too—and the Indians in eurn never doubred that the Europeans had souls, since animals and the ghosts of the dead do as well Thus the Europeans ethnocentrism consisted in doubting thatthe body of the ather contained a soul formally similar to the one inhableing their own bodies while the ethnocentrism of the Indians, on the contrary, entailed doubting thar the others’ souls or spirits could possess a body materially similar o cir. © inthe semiotic terms Roy Wage a Melanesians who wl quichy ral mel el ch cre ay of As Pepe the body belongio the innatcrspomtancousdveaien OF Bucpeanontlogy Chatr,whih the Counter vested sou ‘fan open of conventional ylation, whi the sal wou be te eonerced dimension he ful of itrensieng: moe aon that spss and rd concce the convention iby ‘tacng radial dsineon nd concreting thesia 6 She wot (Wagner 181: 4.1m ingens wo onthe cone 1, The snide ase mn Ovid iy fo dans wall en ce ‘Hana, ne ing unetakes 151 by prs afc Olt oS ete oli Met in with hesubmargnce of yng Sonal wh wr til hen Gowned by Inde rx an guns ha, moran domes th ae ‘Sy of psig he rcaogy of he an ens ack unl et the mrs ‘Vd (1550-5) the elated debe bry us Co a Sepia ubj fhe tof Amen dine Sse Anthony Pan Dh if Nara Ne ‘he Arcane ad the Cri of Compa Boa (98D. "4s The ol win fd saul as een ping ago ee ac it we rede alr, the mbol, ode. The eso pb lem oh ul ofa Ce ‘aoe he plod pc pa fe ts we ca as ‘eet inde range ints a an oneaanen, he oad of anil, the igeceo aches tego hare ppnety waned dese ‘no Intl micpeoeson, Inthe ato ee he Quon cone whe crn simak wold no afer al ve omen le soa re cnsnsness page ee ‘calie—and eproralfontain mae no-spam alg ter ‘wort ue body could how eel cpt omy 52 thes “experend maifaion of te contention one plc in eehng a "suns up the msn hc ty poet Epa them ot ad shoe te wy it whch ele ss (Wagner 1981 96) ee dy onthe ota, Belg he _— sf {Eefnunental gure of wonesng atta tober agi univer and inate ground of th "manent buranty” (Weer ipa te) ted Eaopean pre come i king a (id itreiting eas) he bao gen joer [pound ratte dgenows ps consis in -haking ba Ainlairenining pecs) on heb of sods ona, foelalogven. Dna armel Tre concly enc and gle orginal hora sem sss dic tmmtay howe gs au te recy cae bs clpatand aed preston ne Penn Care So ody ch Wogern st cn be ld be tens of hua ed Satan ptr conceive raha cond In he exe Mec operon of two mode of lito () lls ng commentna (or lta) sl where sigs a onan tenlrdno onecs (ant onan, al eggs) he ten cr eey a oped oa heeogennas lage sia hl ty a ssn ymbling sorting whe han shames tnd) a dierniing tee fox Rea) mode In wh ‘oi of phenomena era by soentonlsbolaon we {cand to be oad y “ymbel epee matey a icra hat silanol malin alsa eens ey scnng he conventional Crna ikl be ober. Bt Sa, tha the wood of rics othe hr dfn he ete tfc wha othe og anche in having te sng pa inyotepesenting ol Te mode of aence ef aca ents twos oocalon stay, esl be ned ht he oat Beene he mad eal of comin operon God peeepin: te dincon bye invention and eoneton isl convent but tthe sme ne oy Centon rec thug counter iaventan: Tecoma s us nsec spelen at buna ars are nae confer ver the made of sbolaaton hey mvt) pg ‘San samenc propel lar aeon or ees a eee ook Other te func the “gen Cates human manent Convention, ding by what hey dein bong he sphere of therapies of sents of theese ro doc wt in The Don of Clare tie uation athe sara of heb in he "lances 33an by what iclongs (became is counter consrcted a bong) to the world of the given or non-constructed. = The core of any and every et of cultural conventions isi disineon a 9 wat nd of cones he nyeoestontd one ot hoof omventon ila toe delet aealaed Jn the course of hima acon, and what Lind of ete ae te Se counter invent “notation” unde the coment nak cf ihe ges" or "he inate” OF ene [} thee ae cay oe possibilities: a people who deliberaly diferensiae asthe form of {hee action wil invariably counter-invent a motivating collecviey 25 “innate,” and a people who deliberately clletivze will counter. lavent a motivating differentiation in this way. (Wagner 1981: 51), oo ‘The anthropological chiasm Lévi-Stess opened ap via the An~ tile incident isin accord with two characteristics of Amazonian cosmology recently distinguished by its ethnography. Fs it une ‘expectedly confirmed the importance of an economy of corporeal Sty the very heart of chose ontologies recently redefined (in what will be seen t0 be a somewhat unilateral fashion) as animist ™ 1 say “confirmed” because this was something that had already been abundantly demonstrated in the Mycbolagique, as long as they are taken literally and thus understood as @ mythic trans. formation of the mythic transformations that wex theit object In other words, they describe, in prose wedding Cartesian rigot to Rabelasian verve, an indigenous anchropology formulated in terms of organic lures, macetal codings, sensible multiplicities, and becomings-animal instead ofin the spectal terns of our own anthropology, whose juridical-theological grsaill: (the rights, duties, rules, principles, categories and moral persons com of the discipline) simply overwhelms i” dy Pipe Deol toute use ans oon maa 17S Sey 8 Data Vin de Cate.79 fist ern ep sofenerliy high Bark ply ne gga Sark ‘eden ihr en onan oe oe nbd ween lag yun thes ion he rt soe nays Sa ‘a Des Guana call "coe pts adap pmeorooad “Bata —despe oa wal tl Rd te Cece ‘touche cn winlerber acta ly 34 Second, Amazonianiss have also perceived certain theoretical Implications of this non-marked or gener staus of the vistual cimension or “soul” of existens, a chief premise of a powerful indigenous intellectual structure that is inter alia capable of pro- ‘viding 2 counter-description of the image drawn of i by Western anthropology and thereby capable, agin, of “returning to us an igen wich we ae unccupiabe to urls” Ths double inuterialisespeculative twist applied eo the usual psychological aind positivist representation of animism, is what we called "per spectvism,” by virtue of the analogies, as much constructed as ‘observed, with the philosophical chesis associated with this term foand in Leibniz, Nietsche, Whitehead and Deleuze. Soo ‘As various cthnographers lave noted (unfortunately too often only in passing), virtually all peoples of che New World share a conception of the work as composed of a malpliciy of pins ‘of view. Every existent is a center of intentionality apprehend- ing ter cant aeciding co thir epecve dais and powers. The presuppositions and consequences ofthis idea fre novels ineducbie tothe eucenteameepe of ean that they would, at first glance, seem «0 evoke. They are, in fact, ieee tars plane orthogonal co the opposition be- twee rea and abr Sudh restance on the ar of Amerindian perspectivism to the terms of our epistemological debacs cass supicion onthe vanity ofthe entlopea prtcions nourishing cher, This isthe conclusion a nuraber of| anthropologists arrived ar (although for very diferent reasons) ‘when asserting thar the narurelculcure distinetion—chat is a- ticle of the Constitution of anthropology, whereby it pledges al Jegiance to the ancient matrix of Western metaphysics—-cannot be used to describe certain dimensions o domains internal to rnon-Occidental cosmologies without first making them the ob- ject of rigorous ethnographic crcique tm the present cave chert demanded the redstabie tion of che predicates arranged in the paradigmatic series of "na ture” and “culture”: universal and particular, objective and sub- jective, physical and moral, the given and she instituted, ncocsity 35and spontaneity immanence and transcendence, body and spice, animalty and humanity, and so on. ‘The new order ofthis other conceptual map led us co suggest that the term “multinauralism” could be used to designace one of the most distinctive traits oF ‘Amerindian thought, which emerges upon its juxtaposition with modero, multicularalise cosmologies. where the later rest on the mutual implication berween the unicity of nature and the multiplicigy of caleares—the first being guaranteed by the objec- tive universaly of bodies and substance, and the sxond engen- dered by che subjective particularity of minds and signifiers (cf Ingold 1991}—the Amerindian conception presupposes, on the contrary, a unity of mind and a diversity of bodies. “Culture” or subject as the form of the universal an! “natare” oF object as the particular one “The ethnography of indigenous America is replete with ref erences to 2 connopoliel theory decibing 2 universe inka ited by diverse rypes of actants or subjective agents, human oF cotherwise—gods, animals, che dead, plants, meteorological phe- omens, andl often objects or artifacts as well—equipped with the same general ensemble of perceptive, appeitive, and cogoitive