Introduction

In this essay I intend to reflect on the anthropologist’s position in relation to activism when he is in the field, in their ethnographic production and, after carrying out these stages, when the study in a given context is over. To this end, it is necessary to reflect on the role of the anthropologist in denouncing realities that are often subalternised, with the role of changing them through initiatives and solutions proposed by the anthropologist, allowing us to reflect on the porosity between the spheres of activism and anthropology.

Due to the compression of time and space (much faster movement of people, ideas, and goods, not forgetting the role of the internet), globalisation processes have altered and created new relations of power and, consequently, inequality between different locations that are interconnected through power structures (Tsing 2009). In order to realise the implications and interconnections between different contexts, it is necessary to take a multi-scalar and multi-sited approach. One of the fields most concerned with the interconnections between local, national, and international scales is environmental studies (Marcus 1998 [1995]) and it is on this theme that I intend to focus, mobilising Tsing’s study (2005) and Kopenawa and Albert’s collaborative ethnography (2019 [2010]).

There are issues that have a greater political component, and this is one of them, due to the critical situation we are experiencing in terms of climate change and the policies of exploitation of natural resources that are being employed around the world, having global environmental, social and economic impacts (Viveiro de Castro in Kopenawa and Albert 2019 [2010]), mainly affecting indigenous populations.

For this discussion, I’m going to think about the role of the anthropologist in these situations, realising how we can give back to the community in question (which made it possible for us to do this work, by making time and attention available), taking into account the importance of the ethnography of the particular (Abu-Lughod 1991), of giving an account of the agency and voice of the most damaged individuals, present in attitudes of resistance (Ortner 2006). The concept of culture is also an important component because, although there are risks in using it, as Abu-Lughod says, it can be a political and economic tool, through a process of differentiation (as can be seen in Davi Kopenawa’s speech legitimising the forest), in which the anthropologist will play a role in the construction (in collaboration) and dissemination of this concept and idea of the group (Latour 2005) into the public sphere.

In the conclusion, I will summarise all these points, linking them more closely, arguing the great importance of anthropologists playing an active role in helping the most vulnerable communities through collaboration (Seeger 2008), crossing the spheres of activism and anthropology, without ever forgetting the importance of establishing a balance between these spheres, so as not to produce biased anthropological knowledge.

– Anthropologist and activist?

Merry (2005), through his field experience working on the subject of human rights, questions the link between activism and anthropology, and ends up stating that by choosing a research topic, a location and how to approach it, one is making a political and social stand.

These spheres differ in the way they look at a given reality, so there will be different ways of producing and exposing knowledge about it. The speeches of NGOs and activists will be marked by a strong emotional component and urgency using stories of specific individuals, drawing on their vulnerability and oppression. Academics, on the other hand, present a more complex and in-depth view of the realities they study, framing them within the social, political, and economic contexts in which they occur, considering local and transnational scales. But these differences don’t mean that these spheres don’t intersect, especially in areas where human rights are being violated. According to Merry (2005), these visions complement each other because both activists gain greater knowledge of the realities they want to address, and anthropologists often learn about certain processes and realities that have been publicised by organisations and activists through their great expression in the media and the public sphere.

The fact that anthropology deals with specific themes and places makes it possible to understand how global dynamics operate at a local level (Tsing 2005), affecting people’s daily lives and how they resist and adapt to processes of oppression. The role of the anthropologist is to expose all these dynamics, thinking of ways to change them through critical anthropology and positioning themselves as advisors, counsellors, and activists,

particularly when it comes to the rights of indigenous populations, as is the case with Tsing (2005), Kopenawa and Albert (2019 [2010]).

The idea of the future is very important for the ecological issue, since both of the studies I’m going to mobilise refer to this idea of uncertainty about the future and even pessimism (The fall of the sky, according to the Yaomami cosmology) if nothing is done. We must bear in mind, as Appadurai (2013) states when talking about the social construction of the future, that the way we think about the future is the result of the cosmology, religion, social, political and historical norms that mould us:

“I wanted in this way not only to denounce the threats suffered by the Yanomami and the Amazon, but also as a shaman, to launch an appeal against the danger that the unbridled voracity of the “People of Merchandise” is weighing on the future of the human and non-human world.” (Kopenawa and Albert 2019 [2010], 51; my translation)

At the same time, there is a feeling of hope, a “capacity to aspire” (Appadurai 2013, 289), in which anthropologists, when carrying out these studies (this is an aspect that is very visible in The Fall of Heaven, since the initiative for this book was Davi Kopenawa’s), try to change this reality, through actions of resistance and political mobilisation, as Tsing (2005) states, when he points out the feeling of possible change present in the discourses of ecological activists in the struggle for indigenous rights in Indonesia.

– The importance of a multi-sited and multi-scalar approach

As mentioned earlier, it is necessary to understand power relations in a given “place” (Viveiro de Castro in Kopenawa and Albert 2019 [2010], 15), since global connections will be visible in friction zones due to encounters and interactions that will shape and create power dynamics (Tsing 2005).

The case of the rainforest in Kalimantam illustrates this argument: in the 1970s, in order to combat the economic crisis in Indonesia, a series of international initiatives and programmes were created by the New Order to attract foreign investment, such as Japanese investment (sogo shosha). These national and international dynamics had repercussions on the increased exploitation of the rainforest for timber, with the Indonesian government focussing on international market transactions rather than

regulating the exploitation of natural resources, creating areas of “wildness” (Tsing 2005, 27).

By combining the multi-scalar approach, i.e. understanding the dynamics between the macro and micro levels, and the multi-sited approach, the anthropologist is able to take account of these dynamics, leading to the emergence of ethical and methodological issues, such as the anthropologist’s negotiation of these networks, given that they are terrains that require greater mobility and different identities. The global and the local are not contrasting since it is the relationships and connections between different places that create the global (Marcus 1998 [1995]).

Tsing (2005), in his study of the impact of the destruction of the Indonesian rainforest in the 1990s, shows how the basic principle of capitalism, proliferation, will have brutal impacts on the “landscape”, both the natural and social landscape, as the indigenous Meratus Dayaks culture has been strongly impacted by all the changes that have taken place.

The frontier becomes a separate space with its own dynamics and participants, such as indigenous populations (with their adaptations and resistance actions), national and international companies and migrant workers (in the case of the Amazon, gold miners), which will trigger conflicts. As he says, these dynamics are local, national, and international since these individuals are governed by the logic of the global resource market.

An ethnography of “global connections” (Tsing 2005, ix) denounces these dynamics, which are also found in a different way in Kopenawa, as he presents a cosmological vision of this process of destruction on the “frontier”. The micro and macro scales are not separate, and it is the relationships between them that create the inequalities that will manifest themselves on these “frontiers”, affecting the daily lives and actions of individuals, and only in this way can we understand how they act and resist these forces present in the contexts.

– The research is over, now what? How to give back to the community?

During fieldwork and even after the study has been completed, it is necessary to take into account the social relationships maintained between the researcher and the community

and vice versa, because these will have an impact on the anthropologist’s engagement in the context. As Wagley (2007 [1960]) states, the social relationships established between researcher and informant are very complex, because bonds can be created that go beyond hospitality (Descola 1996), but which do not eliminate the different positions that both parties play in the production of knowledge about that reality.

Davi Kopenawa was aware of Bruce Albert’s position of greater “power” in terms of dissemination, since he asked him to write the book based on his words. In this “two- person” work – “(…) ‘I’ (the one who speaks and the one who writes) (…)” (Kopenawa and Albert 2019 [2010], 537; my translation), based on the ethnographic pact, they expose the case of the Yaomami community’s vulnerability due to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, through the ontological vision (prophecy) without forgetting the local and global socio-political framework.

This detail and in-depth understanding of the Yanomami’s cosmological vision was only made possible by Seeger’s (2008) four decades of “long term research”, which allowed this community to be accompanied through the destruction of the place where they live and allowed a relationship of great complicity to develop between Davi and Bruce. The greatest advantage of this position for the anthropologist is that he gives people a voice, writing with them and not about them, based on Abu-Lughod’s (1991) conceptualisation of “ethnography of the particular” – “The ‘I’ of the narrator is inseparable from the ‘we’ of the tradition and memory of the group to which he wishes to give voice”. (Kopenawa and Albert 2019 [2010], 539; my translation). By focussing on the strategies and discourses of individuals, it is possible to present a dynamic and diverse picture of views on the processes of exploitation of natural resources and the implications they have for these people, demonstrating the tensions that exist (Tsing 2005).

Another aspect to bear in mind is the role of the anthropologist in the construction of the very community they study, in other words, social scientists will play an important role in the creation/maintenance and definition of groups (Latour 2005) and how indigenous communities themselves can be aware of this fact, maximising this process/position of prominence in their favour. Ethnicity is a social, cultural, and political construct that is mobilised by individuals depending on the situation, and it is important to understand in which context it is mobilised, why and by whom (Brubaker 2002). As can be seen in various processes of political mobilisation by various indigenous peoples around the world, there is a discursive construction of the category of culture (which can be

dangerous, because it can lead to stigmatising and essentialist conceptions, according to Abu-Lughod), becoming a political and economic tool (Sahlins 1998) for legitimising territories and the forest, as Kopenawa states, through the difference he makes between the Yanomami and the “whites” – “That’s why we want to protect the land we live on. Omama created it and gave it to us to live on. But the whites are trying to devastate it, and if we don’t defend it, we will die with it.” (Kopenawa and Albert 2019 [2010], 74; my translation).

As you can see, there are several aspects that have been addressed, but all of them refer to reflection on the role of the anthropologist and their implications in the field and after fieldwork, bearing in mind the bonds of friendship that are developed that can go far beyond the anthropologist’s time in the field. The way to give data and knowledge back to the community is through practical or applied anthropology (Seeger 2008), providing support in situations of greater socio-economic and humanitarian vulnerability, through the process of collaboration in order to develop projects and initiatives that meet the intentions of those being studied, i.e. based on the “ethic of possibility” (Appadurai 2013), presupposing a deeper involvement on the part of the researcher.

– Final thoughts

After this reflection, I would like to summarise the main ideas based on the quote from – “Anthropological faithful research is a profoundly human endeavor.” (Wagley 2007 [1960], 136). Although these are studies with different approaches, in which it is visible how the capitalist system expresses itself differently in each social, political, and economic context (Tsing 2009), they have the same objective: to denounce the over- exploitation of resources and the destruction of the social and natural landscape (Tsing 2005). Because of these differences in looking at these processes (one from the point of view of someone who has experienced the consequences of social and natural devastation in the first person (emic) and the other based on fieldwork), I have emphasised one or the other more in certain aspects because certain ideas are more visible, such as the importance of global connections and how they are expressed in a particular place in Tsing (2005) and the collaborative work of Albert and Kopenawa (2019 [2010]).

I want to argue that in contexts where the ecological issue is present in such a brutal way, it is not possible to differentiate between the sphere of anthropology and activism (Merry 2005) because these are contexts where the choice itself is already a political position.

Long-term research” (Seeger 2008) provides a more detailed view of the processes that take place on these “frontiers”, through a multi-scalar and multi-situated approach, thus presenting a dynamic and processual view that Hutchinson (1996) advocates, in order to look at these ethnic groups as – “(…) no longer isolated, independent, (…) (Hutchinson 1996, 25/26).

The emotions and bonds established with the people affected cannot be obscured from this reflection because they have an impact on the degree of involvement on the part of the researcher – “I found myself caught in their emotions and quite properly, I think unable to produce a dispassionate account.” (Tsing 2005, xi). Giving voice to these individuals demonstrates an (emic) ontological vision in which it is possible to present alternative discourses and practices of ways of being and consequently of ways to change the future to the general public, and not just to academia, before it is too late: “The time has come, in short; we have an obligation to take absolutely seriously what the Indians say through the voice of Davi Kopenawa – the Indians and all the other ‘lesser’ peoples of the planet, (…)” (Viveiros de Castro in Kopenawa and Albert 2019 [2010], 15; my translation).

Another aspect I drew attention to was the fact that the anthropologist has an ethical duty to be deeply engaged in the public sphere by working closely with the community in question, taking into account how they will use the anthropologist’s position of mediator and disseminator in situations of political mobilisation and social action, (e.g. by asking for their help to integrate and guide projects), in order to achieve their projects according to Ortner’s (2006) conceptualisation of agency, by maintaining categorisations constructed for this purpose such as “culture” and the idea of distinct ethnic groups (Brubaker 2002).

As Vale de Almeida (2004) states, the social scientist is a hybrid agent who has a political voice, and although we must try to change and propose solutions to something that has negative consequences, we must not become immersed in the activist aspect, because otherwise we produce something biased. A balance is needed because if you choose the political position and don’t have it in the study, it can be manipulated by the political sphere in order to legitimise certain arguments, while if the activist component is too

strong, there is a danger of knowledge becoming incommensurable and biased. As social scientists and citizens, anthropologists have a responsibility to collaboratively help and intervene in the lives and problems that are their object of study, if the community in question wants them to.

REFERENCES:

ABU-LUGHOD, L., 1991, “Writing Against Culture” in Recapturing Anthropology: working in the present. Ed. Richard G. Richard Santa Fe: School of American Research

APPADURAI, A., 2013, The Future as Cultural Fact. Essays on the Global Condition, London, Verso

BRUBAKER, Rogers, 2002, “Ethnicity Without Groups”, Archives Européennes de Sociologie XLIII (2), 163-189

DESCOLA, Phillipe, 1996 [1993], The Spears of Twilight. Life and Death in the Amazon Jungle, New York, The New Press

HARVEY, David, 1989, The Condition of Postmodernity: Na Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, Cambridge MA & Oxford UK, Blackwell

HUNCHINSON, Sharon, 1996, Nuer Dilemmas. Coping with Money, War, and the State, Berkeley, University of California Press.

KOPENAWA, Davi & Bruce ALBERT, 2019 [2010], A Queda do Céu. Palavras de uma Xamã Yanomani, São Paulo, Companhia das Letras

LATOUR, Bruno, 2005, Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor- Netwok Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press

MARCUS, George, 1998 [1995], “Ethnography in/of The World System. The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography”, Ethnography through Thicck & Thin, 79-104

MERRY, S. E., 2005, “Anthropology and Activism. PoLAR: Political and Legal

Anthropology Review, 28(2), 240-257. Doi: 10.1525/pol.2005.28.2.240

ORTNER, S., 2006, “Power and Projects. Reflections on Agency”, Anthropology and Social Theory, Culture, Power and the Acting Subject, Durham, Duke University Press, 129-153

SEEGER, Anthony, 2008, “Long-Term Field Research in Ethnomusicology in the 21st Century”, Em Pauta 19 (32-33), 3-20

TSING, Anna L., 2005, Friction. An Ethnography of Global Connections, Princeton, Princeton University Press

TSING, Anna L., 2009, “Supply Chains and the Human Condition”, Rethinking Marxism 21 (2), 148-170

VALE DE ALMEIDA, M., 2004, “Cidadania e Antropologia: Perplexidades de um agente social híbrido”. In Ensaios de Antropologia e Cidadania. Porto: Das Letras do Campo

WAGLEY, Charles, 2007 [1960], “Champukwi of the Village of Tapirs”, Robbens, A. & J. Sluka (eds.), Ethnographic Fieldwork. An Anthropological Reader, Malden MA e Oxford, Blackwell, 127-13