From the Enemy's Point of View, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro
Critical
review by Olivier Charnoz
James's Question
The question focuses on the relation between the
Arawaté cosmology and their everyday behaviors, rituals, and more generally
'forms of life'. How do the latter embody the Arawaté 'cosmological sense'
? The questions suggests that it is
perhaps through a 'sense of fluid positionalities' that this cosmology is
primarily expressed. The point of this suggestion is " to move past Viveiros'
use of opposition and categories in discussing the Arawaté's sense of cosmology
and to see in everyday behaviors, as well as in rituals -in all forms of life-
a cosmological sense".
Introduction
Viveiros' central claim is that the Arawaté society is
primarily metaphysic, as a few cosmological principles underlie most social
phenomena. What we are interested in is the form under which one can recognize
the Arawaté cosmology through the multiplicity of everyday behaviors,
activities and rituals ? How do these behaviors refer to the cosmological sense
that Viveiros scrupulously describe in his work ?
This paper
argues that James' proposal to consider a "sense of fluid positionalities" as a
key cosmological stamp is partly justified though totally insufficient. In our
view, the most profound manifestation of the Arawaté cosmology in social
phenomena is the need for otherness, without which the self cannot develop.
Finally, the paper moves onto explaining why the all discussion might be
biased, as it assumes a separation of society from the cosmos which is not
relevant in the case of the Arawaté.
The notion of 'fluidity' evokes movement,
transformation, and absence of cut and dried boundaries. As such, it can be
related to many aspects of the Arawaté cosmology, as Viveiros underlines
himself. Human destiny is for instance thought of as process of
"Other-becoming", as men eventually become gods (Maï). The gods are therefore the future of mankind, which is
essentially movement. Temporality is a key aspect : humans are said to be iha me'e ri : "those who will go" (73).
Besides, the appearance of the gods is a mixture of the figure of the Arawaté
and of the figure of the enemies (70) ; the majority of animals used to be
humans long ago (72). All these elements show a certain 'fluidity' of Arawaté
ontological categories.
The concept of
'fluid positionalities', as James puts it, is at first sight very attractive,
as it seems to apply to a great deal of social aspects - as Viveiros notices
himself. What is for instance striking is the absence of initiation ceremonies
and the little emphasis on life-cycle changes : marriages are very informal
(167), funeral rites are minimal (197), there is no marking of the termination
of the mourning phase (201). The division of labor shows a great "fluidity" in
Viveiros' words (44): fishing and gathering are for instance pursed by both
sexes. Another characteristic example is that the function of leadership of a
collective action circulates among all the adults (111)
If we now look
at the ritual use of space, we still can't detect any rigid rule or principle
(21). Until very recently, the Arawaté conception of territoriality was open,
which means that they did not have a notion of exclusive dominion over a
rigidly define space (33). From 1945 to 1976 they inhabited about sixty
villages, which shows again a 'fluid' and changing spatial representation (49).
Besides, the first impression given by an Arawaté village "is one of chaos :
the houses are very close to one another and do not obey any principle of
alignment" (99). The village is pluricentric : there is no social center, and
the most important social event (the festival of strong beer) is always held in
a different patio (103).
In a nutshell, it seems that the Arawaté cannot "be
adequately described using concepts such as rules and norms (.) Everything
[seems] possible" (9).
However, in our view, fluidity is not the best concept
one can use to detect the cosmological stamp on social phenomena. The basic
reason is that fluidity in the cosmological realm has to be understood mainly
as precise temporal change, whereas in the realm of social phenomena, it tends
to be more used as an equivalent of 'vagueness' and 'absence of boundaries'.
Moreover, its descriptive power (understood as vagueness of boundaries) has its
limits in the Arawaté social morphology, as soon as one goes beyond a certain
degree of precision : for instance, even though both sex dedicate themselves to
agriculture, manioc is a man affair, maize a woman affair (45). Fluidity is very often the surface of social
phenomena, which can encompass very deep and stable structures, as for instance
the annual cycle (96) or the forest, as a masculine space (45).
The most profound and clearest cosmological sign
affecting social phenomena, is in our view the need for Otherness, which
intervenes at every step of the construction of the self.
Perhaps should
we remind that "Arawaté cosmology is one of those that situate the meaning on
the outside" (151). Otherness is foundational : "the Other is not a mirror but
a destiny (.) Alterity is intrinsic to the Arawaté person". The divine
Cannibalism, which is the core dogma of this cosmology, is "the opposite of a
narcissistic incorporation ; it is an alteration, a becoming" (254). We can
detect the cosmological imperative of Otherness in five key aspects of social
life, four of which are the formative steps of the construction of the self :
birth, name giving, construction of sexual identities, marriage, and
leadership.
The most
primitive step of the construction of the self is, to be sure, procreation.
It is very frequent that "more than one inseminator take turn in producing a
child, in a process called di mo, to
enlarge. The ideal number of genitors seems to be two or three" (180). Thus, a
'high degree of Otherness' is at the very root of any individual life.
Besides, the
child can be named after a deceased member of the group (pirowi hane), after an enemy (awi ne), or after a divinity (Mai de) (145). Names are thus always
given after beings who are clearly outside the group. As Viveiros puts it, the
naming system relies on the "extra social" (153). This brings in Otherness
again into self identity.
The mutual
construction of sexual identities and the symbolic mutual penetration of
sexes is an even more striking example of the necessity of Otherness in self
identity building.
1) Between seven and eleven years the boy's
prepuce is tied with a fine strand of cotton : any man who is not his genitor
or mother's husband may perform this operation. These are two figures of
Otherness (185)
2) A girl' sexual life starts by its body being
literally 'manufactured' by the men (187) : they pierce the vagina and the
labia of the vulva. Through the progressive elongation of the labia minora, the
Arawaté fabricate a female penis. In a nutshell : "the construction of women's
sexuality is the responsibility of men" (187). To say the least, this is a
powerful element of Otherness in the female self identity.
3) The aray
rattle, which is the utmost symbol of masculinity, is woven by women : metaphor
of the phallus which is nevertheless largely fabricated by women (222). Once
again it is clear that men and women are mutually relying on each other in
building their gender identity.
4) The strong beer, produced by women (with their
saliva) are for the almost exclusive use of men. Viveiros notes that " the beer
operates as a kind of female semen, the counterpart and equivalent of male
semen" (130). It symbolizes a literal "insemination of women by men"
(131).
As regard marriages, Otherness is equally
important as it does not involve two but four people. Indeed, as soon as a
married couple is formed, it is automatically paralleled by a apihi-piha friendship system whereby two
men can exchange their spouses. "An apihi-piha is an anti-affine, a sort of antidote to affinity" (170). It is true that
the marriage system proper shows a clear tendency towards endogamy. But it is
straightaway compensated by this antidote reestablishing the primacy of
Otherness : "simultaneously minimum and maximum exogamy" (178).
Leaving the sphere of identity building, Otherness is
still a key principle for the understanding of other aspects of Arawaté social
life, such as for instance the peculiar form of collective action. Authority is
ideally an exo-authority. This is why nobody really wants to initiate any
collective action . A good example can be found in the fact that the dispersal
of the village are associated with shamanic visions (116) which are supposedly
divine indications : "the burden of the beginnings is transferred to the gods.
No one decides" (117). More generally, "authority is founded on Alterity, in
relation with the others : gods, the dead and enemies" (118), through the
figures of the Shaman and the Warrior.
It is interesting to note that the latter, who is key
figure of the Arawaté society, has precisely an identity totally based on
Otherness. Indeed, by killing an enemy, he becomes
an enemy, as the spirit of the victim will never leave him (245). He is also
said to die and to come alive again, which gives him an extra-social status of
'almost god' (251). The Killer has become someone else for himself and in the
eye of the others.
Otherness is therefore arguably a far more heuristic
principle than the relatively emptier concept of 'fluidity'.
In this final part, I would like to suggest the notion
that the very approach adopted by both the question and my answer so far, might
not be the most appropriate, as they tend to artificially separate cosmology
and society : "The precarious functionalist distinction between 'cosmology' and
'social organization' [.] must be soon abandoned in the case of societies where
the principles of social organization are at the same time metaphysical
principles" (26).
What really
distinguishes the Arawaté even from other Tupi-Guarani groups is the extent to
which the Maï assert their present in
their life (89). "I came to perceive the presence of gods, as a reality or as a
source of examples, in every minute routine action" writes Viveiros (13).
Paradigms of body ornamentation, standards for interpreting events, source of
news (75), the gods also take part in every collective ceremony and partake of
the food - thanks to the shamanic operation peyo
(89). Other striking facts show this divine proximity.
It is only
artificially, in the framework of an ethnography for instance, that one can
thematically extract the Arawaté mythology from their normal discourses and
practices. Viveiros insists on the fact that "mythology is implicit" (9) and
totally embodied in everyday forms of life. Knowledge of this implicit
mythology is widely spread throughout
society : every one listen night after night to the shamanic songs. "I was
astonished by the amount of cosmological knowledge that children possessed"
(18).
The primal event
of the Separation is not a remote mental construct. One can see it anytime in
the current landscape as " it is the mold or the negative of the disengagement
of the celestial surface and the ensuing deluge" (59). Moreover, the era of
dispersal is not so distant, as "the great grandparents of Aya-ro, and aged man
of eighty years, are said to have witnessed the ascent of the skies" (63).
Finally, and
most profoundly, the gods are affines,
as Viveiros conjectures (90) and confirms (218) : gods are spouse-takers, so
they are sons-in-law or brothers-in-law. He concludes : " Arawaté society
[merely] includes the gods" (283).
Thus, one cannot
separate Arawaté society and the surrounding cosmos, as society is only a small
and transitory fraction of it. The Arawaté not only have relations with the
gods, but the gods themselves are part of the society. The social space is
totally included into the cosmological. One cannot therefore properly speak of
a cosmological influence (through a 'fluidity principle' notably) on the social
morphology, as the latter is more profoundly totally founded on metaphysic
principles.
The fluidity principle is not very adequate to
understand the role of cosmology in the Arawaté society. Viveiros acknowledges
it himself : "a functionalist or sociocentric perspective would be doomed to
contemplating nothingness, or else to take refuge in 'fluidity', in 'individualism',
or who knows in historical degeneration" (255).
The Otherness
principle seems better adapted, as it can systematically give an account of the
identity building process.
However, it
remains that one should preferably try to grasp the profound identity of
society and cosmology, rather than the impact of the latter upon the former. In
doing so, the Otherness principle probably holds.
N.B : I do not understand
James' criticism over Viveiros' use of "oppositions and categories", as it does
not impede the author from elaborating the 'fluidity principle' (e.g. 29) that
James tends to present as contradicting the author's method (?). Indeed
Viveiros' use of oppositions and categories (e.g. 61, 69) is rare and always
very prudent, as in the following quote : "Such a system represents my
reconstruction, not an explicit framework of Arawaté cosmology, which is as
little articulated as possible around polar oppositions" (61).