Elementary Structures of Reciprocity

8/12/2019 Elementary Structures of Reciprocity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-structures-of-reciprocity 1/11

1,' ••••.

"

Elementary structures of reciprocity: a

comparative note on Guianese, Central

Brazil ian, and North-West Amazon

socio-political thought



· r I}" ' i) \ \

: \

c 0~..'( \. > \

1'Ttv-V\

ANTROPOLOGICA

59-62, 1983-1984:

331-348

Elementary structures of reciprocity: a

comparative note on Guianese, Central

Brazilian, and North-West Amazon socio-

political thought

Joanna Overing

In his work, Society against the state (1977), Pierr{Ciastr~/argued for the

subtlety and the depth of Amerindian political philosophY';-as-or;'e that in refusing

the development of coercive power neutralizes "the virulence" of political authority

(1977: 35) and allows for the egalitarian institutions that so distinguish thesesocieties as we now know them. Clastres suggestedthat it is the e!!il~sophical

sophisticationjalbeit an unconscious one) ~Qith~Arne!tl!d_ial!. that leads him to

-identify power with lnat~i(q and thus a for~~th,at must remain external to society.

Very briefly Clastres' argument was that icul~_~r~1inapprehending power as the

resurgence of nature itself, negates both by asserting the predominance of the

principleolr~cipr()~~~y, the primary ontological dimension of Amerindian society

against which both power and nature are opposed. While I agree with Clastres that

the acceptance of power coercive in substance might well entail a rejection of

reciprocity, the principle most basic to an egalitarian polity, I wish to argue that

Amerindians identify coercive l'0wer, not with the forces of nature, but with the

forces of culture, its p~Oducts, ~ndtIleir control. It is not nature that Amerindian

society is rejecting, but an ownership of culture's forces that would allow for the

coercive or violent use of them and which would entail, among other controls, thecontrol over economic activity and its products. Insofar as an Amerindian society

achieves the goal of such a rejection it is a society without a political economy,!

where no-one in a political role can order another's labour or the fruits of it.

1 I mean by "politkal economy" that system within which one social group or category has ,oer';lIe

control over the ~~nd its products) of another. My discussion is not necessarily in contradiction to

that of Riviere's tn-tlUssymposium who is postulating forrhe Guianas a "politkal economy of people" as

opposed to a "political economy of goods,"



. l'

It ~:.

I n r ec en t l it er at ure w e se e th at t h ' ,, , ' ere eXIstsconsIderable " ,

organIzatIOn of L owland A merind' " variation In t he socialth G' f B Ian SOCletlesofSouth Arne' be

e eo razil, those o f the North W A rica, tween those o f h f ' - est mazon and those f h G '

on t e aceof It myi~retatio '0 t e Ulanas,Thusthe end might be I~nd B n maya~pear to be too general aone, as well it i~

/ understanding of,society as a pO:~::SssocI,ehti~sof Ce~t~al Brazil, the Amerindianth' . d' -~~-~~ Wit In a speCIficcosm I ' Ic__ .~~s Isplayedsnatially before o--~bo h' -;----_~oglca scheme of

'II .t::~__ ur eyes t In the . I -VI age lay-out and in their ritual li E . d ' h I r c lrc u a r o r s emi ·c irc ul ar

h 'b' d' e. IC otomous c1assific' f ex I Ite In their ceremonial liE d -h- -.---.-- atlons 0 reality aresystem, or series of moiety syste~/n eac VIllageI~selfis bisected by a moiety

which elaborate relations of logical~~~Sed by d~adlCc1a~sificationand between

formal through ceremony in com I' Pde~ty are rttuallyplayed out madeM~la~ti 1979; Crocker 1979; May:u:c~::w:ar (see Lave 1979; da M~na' !279;

/ prlnclQlesoLsocialstructure are lik ~ 979). In ~ Nottll-West-:;\mazw;>there is the head to tail'~~g-ment e~ltS~f~h~o the eye, bur o r a dlftereilt o'rder:

atlon 0 t e anaconda .conceptual pattern for the territ . I ='. ' ,'2T ancestor whIch sets the

patri-sibs of an Exogamo~Grou;la ~e~mentatlon ~f the l'iye-! by the ranked

Exogamous Groups ofdifferent anac'OWdO o~l foIexchange units with patri-sibs of , rd' n a origin When comp ed . h

rttua Ize socIalorganization of the Central B ',. " ar Wit the highly/!conceptualized lay-out of the N th W AraztllanSOCletlesand with the well-

/' . k' h' &:r-.~::=:"'~ or - est mazon villa h/ ~ 1~_gro~~.9.~1!!erindians a ar f . ges, ~ e~~~!!l~"~

t~e GUlanasthere exists no compie; - ~ __ l?I~aE<i~~orp.h_ousIn shape. Inlife; there are no naming groups n spa~la, Ig~ra~lOnreflectlng the order ofsOCial

. , 0mOIetIesIn ritual excha . ha ct lng o ut c ere mo nia ll y a p art ic ul a " f n ge Wit o ne a no the r

r VIsIon0 c os mo lo g' I d '

an eternal ordering of" another wo Id"f h ',Ica or erlng or expressingto declare the elaborate interlock' r f rhomt .e mythIcpast, There exists no ritual, h Ing 0 t e units of which " .

slg t, Guianese socialgroups are ato ' . d' socIetyIScomprised. To

A p~~scripti~~marria8e rule ass:~stlcd I~~rse~ a~d highly fluid in form,!~latLonship terminol~g-;'-is to' t i t b late

f Wit varlatlons on aDravidian tvneof

A ' --, J' e e st 0 our knowledg' --=.u::=.'

merlndlan groups (see for I R" e , uOlversal t o GuianeseO ve ri ng K ap la n o n t he '~ ;~ 2e , 1 ; vI~ re , on ~g ani za ti on 1 974 a;

Throughout the Guianas the privile ed ~ 5, .LIZO,t,on the ~amt 1971).(1969: 120), is within one's Own I g I unIon, ~nlevI-Strauss' sense of the term

kinsmen (see Riviere 1969a'Henle;~;7~~~l~~ltself identified as a unit of doseAlbert 1977; Overing Kapl~n 1981 T' ~t,onthe Yanomam in Ramos and together within a largecommunal ho)' he traditIOnal local group usually dwellsM b h' , ~~ use as an endogamous co . k' h'

em ers Ip In the house is normall based u· . '. gnatlc_~.

aduJcshould be married into the ho Yh ff.pon a,pr,lnclple of ~tfinity, and an, h use, ave a Ines WIthin 't '"IS one t at I have previously classified as an "all' I ,~oJOI,nIt,Its structure1975), one which maintains I'tself ,-.Iafnce-basedkinshIp group" (1973

h as a unIt 0 co b' -- ,exc ange to within itself,its unity assuch a rou be' gnates , y Ideally restrictingof marital exchanges among men . h' tIP IngassocIatedwith the number 1984), WIt In t e ocal group itself (Overing Kaplan

AsIhaveelsewhere said (984) l 't" 'h '. , , ISIronICt at In the ve " prescriptive marriage rule isof such hI" ry SOCIetIeswhere the

overw e mlng Impo t hr ance to t e organization

of local groups within them, there is no evidence of a dual organization through

which ritual or, indeed,sociallife couldbe playedout; while in the organization of

moiety relations ~e ~{l~J~~roros.~~e~i~s,th~~J(f;hl!.Il~J)Jy.rQIl!~{l.~£w~!1_ moieties plays a relative!L-I!lin9rpar~in the Amerindian understandingof moietr

interaction (Lave"1979idaMatta 1979;Melatti 1979;Crocker 1979;Maybury-Lewis

1979).!n_~w.!a~~.~~.u.!.~Ameri~~~~aIo~8anization is often not associatedwith a

prescriptive marriage rule, and conversely th~esen~e of..!':l~!t.!.rul~J:~y_'!~_~~~.~-,--

if!l"p!!~s_thepr~sen.~~9.f.QlJalQJ.&!l.!!!~ti~!1..;This contrast -that on the one hand

there are societieswith elaborate dual organizations but no associatedprescriptive

marriage rule and on the other there are those that have a prescriptive marriage

rule but no evidence of a dual organization- will be pertinent to the discussion below of!h~ variation we find between societiesin th~~11lt>Q.r~!!9E_<?fp!i~~_!p.Ie~of exchange within them. My argument is that underlyin&such contrast there is aunita!f princi.E~,ie_ty'jJhe contrast in organization merelyreflectsthe various

ways in which ~s_if!lilar philos().E9.Yof sqcillJli(e can be acted out through"elementary structur~~:-, Y .> < I

Thus, I shall argue that despite the great contrast in the organization of the

Central Brazilianand the North- West Amazon societieswith those of the Guianas,

underlying their very dissimilar social structures is a similar philosophy of social

existence that implies as well~.ticqJllr.l:lQQ~r.~tll_!1din&..~P.2lili.c~Le9_"'~~and thecontrol over the forces of culture, or the scarce resources in the world, that such

-power might entail. !he P!}~~ipl~(lfs<><:i,al)ife,to which I am referring is the idea \that society can exist only insofar as there is contact and proper mixin&...lllJ.long

~~itJ_e.s.lln<iJor~~s!11!tll.r.~u;ljff~~!!!fr()rnon~another (see Overing Ka Ian 1977, •.•1981), I hesitate here to speakof "u~rl¥ing dUlllisms,"preferring" Iffer~ as

the term to describe the metaphysical principle which I am claiming to be a basic

ordering principle common to all of these societies, I am further arguing that in

indigenous theory "difference" i~.~.~.!ate,<L~!t.~_~~r, with difference beingultimately understood as variation in the setof the forcesofculture,and of power in

general, controlled. In brief, social existence is identified with both difference and ,: danger, and inversely asocial existence (e.g" the afterworld) with identity and

safety, It is for this reason that Amerindians place such£()!1sid~rllbleemph~.i~in

social lifeupon the proper mixing of elementsandfor.~e~, which must of necessity

be different each from the next for society to exist: it is only through such "proper"

mixing that safety can be achieved in society and danger averted, Finally,safety in

society becomes no other than '!.1l.Iiil.ledrecipr()(;!ty,"in contrast to reciprocity

unfulfilled where forces dangerous to one another meet dangerously (see Overing

Kaplan 1984).

Such principles are expressed overtly in Piaroa2 and North-West Amazon

2 The fieldwork among the Piaroa, upon which this paper is based, was carried out in 1968 and 1977

with M. R. Kaplan to whom I am deeply indebted for data collected jointly. The research in 1977, upon

which much of the presentation is based, was financed by the SSRC Grant HR 5028; Central Research

Funds of the University of London; School of Economics Research Funds; and the Institute of Latin

American Travel Funds. The SSRC also later gave me a Research Grant (HRP 6753) which allowed me

the time to analyse data acquired in 1977.



;,5[«: -,

• v " " . , " - - ; l<)

~r(othv,,-p

: c r~ Y '

cosmogony and in Central Brazilian ceremoniall'f " ,that I have arrived at my conclusion Th I e. It ~snot by Structural analysis

, . . s. e extent to whIch C:arib nM.. .

e~presslOn 10 ntual or cosmology to a theor ~ps gIve UVert

dlffere~ce and dan~J with the comingro et~e;~; .E9.u~~~~U'..,;~jlh~}1h

source, ISa topic still to be explored If h d~ . cultu~al forces dIfferent in. h II . suc Iscourse IS not 1m ed' I

s a nevertheless argue that C 'b . I " m late yevident I'k an socIa structure In ItS ideal f h d '

unIon ma es a COvert statement of th '. lOt e en ogamuus b . ese prlOclp es that might II b

more 0 VIOUSfashion in other Trop' IF' , we e srareJ inTh P' Ica orest SOCIetIes

e l ar oa an d t he G ui an es e Ame ri nd ia ns i n e n~ ra l .group organization to Suppress the diff f L~ do theIr best in local

h'l h A e ren ce s 0 w Ul ch s oc ie t bw let e Ge, th e Bororo and th e No rth-Wes t y m ust e comp ri sed ,recognition of such variation among Am . d' A.mazon CUltures stress them, Ad 'ff " '. - erlO lans 10t he ir s oci al d ' I f ~e.ntla.t;lon! or on the.cQ!!!!~ their sup ';~;sion of it t----I~llr-~.~!:I.t~!.a.1u nd er st an dl Og v ar ia ti on i n t h - . , I E. ' -, • .. .a ke s o ne a l on g w ay i nLIe SocIa structures of the A . d'

ow and So uth America. Amon g the Gee h B menn Ian g rou ps of North-West Amazon the forces of I ,t e or~ro and the Amerindians of the

the relatively formal principles of cu,tlure are.soc~t/y controlled, as evidenced by, SocIa orgaOlzatlon typical f h '

mentioned a bove, The atomi t' , I . 0 t ese SOCIetiesand f s IC SOcIa structures usual to th G .

un ormalized nature of <::;uianesesocial rou in . e __.!1!~l!a.~..and the

from ap.hiIQ~Q.P..hL9f individualism~ t~at r gs IS,I would suggest, fOrthcoming

rindians, a philosophf;hich contra~ th As st~on~ly expressed by these Ame-

~th their mQr~·'socia.lIy~minded" neih~ur;:rlOdlans of the Guianas in generalof Control in the hand;' '0"-f --"._,_.,.8. ·I···..~he South who place certain ty""s

socIety. n the Guian h r~responsibility of the individual. as suc c ontrols are the

For the Piaroa, and probably f or other G . . .~es. of culture, asocial in oriDin are d ' uladnes.e~menndlans as well, theth 'b'" "------.:2' omestlcate WlthlO the ind"d I h'

e r es p on s I t li ty f or c on tr ol li ng p ri vat el TJ h- '- -~ I V~. ' l~_w 0 haswithin him, The Piaroa emph' y nSI ,e .u~self all culturalforces he takesf ' asIS upon the IOdlVldual's 'bTorces ISbut one aspect of a subtle hiloso h f . " ~esponsl I I ty for such

any scale by which it can be p d ( P Y0 ~~Ivld\laltsm that is extreme on

~ ng ly i mp or ta nt pa rt i n ~~ as ur e . se elhLukes 1973): it is one that plays' an

, laroa socIa t ought as I s lik'case for the Carib shPakers of th G . ,uspect eWlse to be the

If r- e Ulanas who also pI h .s e - co nt ro l an d i nd iv id ua l r es po ns ib il i M I' a ce a n e mp a s I S u po n

speakers of Central Brazil that the Phystyl'c'I e_l~ftthl/saysof the Kraho (1979: 67), Ge" t I h' ' a se t roughelaborat ' I' ,t> ou er c ot log of cultural identit h' h . , e rttua ISgIven an

identity; while fo;-the soci~JP'-Y w IC 110

turn p~ovldes the individual with social' ,::., ,--Iaroa, cu ture and ItS forc 'I d'

name-Is one's ;nnercloth' "h -~, -;-- '. e.s -IOC u 109 one's own .~c

-_ ..::;~... lOB,t e nature of whIch ISP . h f '..a nd t am ed by o ne 's s el f al on e A I h 11 '1 1 n va te , sa me u l t o re ve al v. - "

, s s a I ustrate below, the social COntrol of self i; . ' r

. The Piaroa dwell in rhe Guianas along rriburaries of rhe Midd .~nd ep en de nr lan gu ag e g rou p, rh e S aliv a a n d h ' . . Ie OrlOo co . T he Piaroa b elon g ro a n

vocabulary, In borh soci-aiand polirieal sr:.uerure a;h a;!gOlfleanr number of Carib "inrrusioos" iii their

Dreyfus, rhis symposium who srresse rh' ,e laroa belong erhnographically to rhe Guianas See. • s e Imporranee of trearing rhe G 'I 'u s c oa st , a s a s in gle (albe ir c omplic ared ) u nira h I' . . u la na s, a o ng wirh rhe islan ds o ff

I See Riviere in rhis symposium wh I ry W I 0 e 10 polmeal organizarion,G . 0a so paces srress upon rh .

UJanese socio-polirieal rhought. e Imporrance of individualism to

but a part of a wider set of ideas that the Piaroa hold about self-identity, the

composition of self and the domestication of the elements (forces) of which it is

comprised,

The social control of the forces of culture: Central Brazil and the North-West

Amazonas examples

Ethnographers of NortherQ,G'i)ocieties (Melatti 1979; Lave 1979; da Matta

1979) make the observation that'rllese Amerindians relate their complex social

institutions to a complicated set of beliefs concerning the name-based trans"li!sioC!.

of social identit~_ from name givers to name recei~ers. It is through suchtransmission of names, each name-set beli::ved to be an immutable whole, that the

continuity of society is thought to be based. Name-holding groups,.are described by

these authors as corPQrate un~ owning in perpetuity not only sets of names, but

a,lso rites, ritual paraphernalia, and named ritual group locations (see Overing

Kaplan 1981). In other words, ~he name-sets dividearnongthem,s~IY~~,.th.~ s_ca.t::~~

~~~~~~rces~!~~.~ie~.!.~.ic~_a.r~,.!would say, ~~f~rt:her evidence-fiom the Bororo, the

.Jor.~~~_~ cul!.llr~: forces which allow for the health, wealth, and fertility of the land

and the community, and thereby the life-giving (andlife-destructfve) forces of the

world. For the Northern Gee the transmission of a name carries with it the"-----'

transmission of ceremonial affiliation, e~~~ric ~!l0'?!'Jedge, and ritual rights and

obligations: the name in its acquisition provides the individual with a social identity

and in so doing gives one membership into a social group that ~wns a portion of the

forces of culture available in the world.

B..y far .the cl..e.a.rest statemen.) o.~ e..nnltralBrazilian societies of the ~~l ..2fC\11tural forces is given by ~ro_~~~X1979) on the Baroro. Bororo society, as

represented by the village, is comprised of exogamous moiet~s, each with four

"matri-dans" standing in ,f~~2, spatial o~cler to one another around the village

circle. The resulting eight-part division of the village corresponds to the ~h!.~fold

divisi~!:1pf tile forces()f the cosm(}s. All the names of things in the universe are

divided among the eight matri-clans who own as clan property one-eighth of the

~ames of !!!!Il~in the world and their ~~", ..!.~~E~.r.£Q!.llt~.~or ·'categ,Q.r..il,:.llL

essencc;" of each element OVine<:l'In the topography of the underworld, the world of

aroe, all the "totemic entities" (their force?) and the dead members of a single clan

live together in the geographical wedge allocated to that clan, aspatial arrangement

that is replicated in the village. Thus, the forces of culture, the scarce resources

owned by each clan, have their source beneath the earth. The most valued wealth of

the clan, its own ·~iri~m.resentations," are given as"gifts to clans of the.~site

.moiery to be performed by their members, and each clan must fulfil its categorical

and ritual responsibility to other clans, as representative of one of the eight

categories into which the universe is classified.

As is true for the name-holding groups of the Geeand for the Bororo clans, the

, Pira-Pirana sib of the North-West Amazon also controls ritual resources and its

o;~~ e t~ i personal names (H u g 1 i~ ]O ii e $ "C . 1979; Hugh-Jones S. 1979). As with the~

Bororo, the forces of culture owned socially -by each sib- have their source from



beneath the earth where they are housed in "Waking-up Houses," the stone houses

of the sibs located in the underworld from whence the souls of the newborn come

and to which go the souls of the dead. It is in the COntext of .!~ 9wnershipby each

clan of its own store of personal names, recy~l~g eachalterfl~!~,a~~~~'!tion along

with souls who live in the clan's "Waking-up House," that we can parrially

'understand the puzzling hallmark of the North- West Amazon societies: excepting

the Cubeo, North-West Amazon Amerindians ideally marry exogamously to their

own language group, one's language being inherited from one's father. Christine

Hugh-Jones remarks (1979) thatl~1'!8uage should be considered as a partof ~escent

group property, along \yidgitJ,!@ll?i,l..raphet:n.aUa.If this is so, then each Exogamous

Group ':'-a set of sibs which is descended from one anaco~ ~ncestor and wh ich has

the same language affiliation- has its own "stor~the names of things in theworld. The corporate aroe, named totems, of a Bororo clan takes in one-eighth of

the universe, while among North-West Amazon Indians each Exogamous Group

"owns" a special vocabulary idiosyncratic to itself that covers all items in the world.

lt may well be that £ontrol o!.~r a.~i~~.~~.p.~~~f.lles.for thin,gs entails for these

Amerindians a pa.rticular ~"!'~tover these~~.~n.s~or aCCessto its force (see OveringKaplan 1981).

Christine Hugh-Jones also tells us (1979) that it is generally so among

Amerindians of the North-West Amazon for marriage to be explicitly exogamous

not only to language group and lineage, but also to habitat association, an

identification conferred by sib membership and explained by origin myths. In

mythic time the Primal ~ gl!Y~J:?inJL~thr~~,!!~.fQ!ld~s. who are associated

respectively with the domains.of sky, ea!:~l.li!l(LW~jg, and who are the ancestors of

the three intermarrying Exogamous Groups. Through' the intermarriage of themembers of these groups society came into existence, each group having its origin

from SOurcesof power forthcoming from different cosmic domains. !l1egistinqj~w

between ma~r, ~£S.-'1.!if.Jlal?(tll.g;,and the forces associated with each, becomes at

least for some Indians of the North-West Amazon a rOOtdistinction of sameness

and difference and l?.!'Q,vj<!eLthe l~,n8..u.~ for the discussion of identity and

differ~nce'in social.relationships, and as such has a startling degree of classificatory

strength in the ordering of Vaupes marriage exchange and ritual life.

In North-West Amazon societies those of the same Exogamous Group are

identified with a particular habitat domain, while affines are associated with

another. That similarity and difference are expressed in the language of habitat

domain suggests a clear recognition of a control, Over forces that is ~ -'Q .oQ m k,in

J;~$!;'-Piaroa cosmogony, in telling about the creation of the world, the origin of

culture and the natural elements of the earth, tells also of the E..a..ttlesthat OCcurredinthe wake of such creations .!?etJleen the ~\\I.()gr.eatdell)!l1r ges of mythic time, !!.ffllles

to one another, over the elements and forces of the habitat domains each

respectively was responsible for creating and thereby owned. Each wanted Control

over the forces of the other, as well as the ownership of the other's domain. In

Piaroa cosmogony and theogony there is an explicit recognition of the perils to

social man of power that attempts to gain ownership of the products of the

universe, for it is a power .that quickly becomes coercive, violent, and unCOntrolled

I • in the North-West Amazon, cosmogonyin its expression. At the ~ame time, .as nce in source of origin and in type of

associates affinity with dl~fe:~~:~ ~I~~e~~at th~l'1t~ra.cti~n ~fsuc!\~:fferenc~~,

powers owned ..~he myt~lc. . g ntiall hi hly dang erou$.to it: It ISa danger while aprerequisite to soclalltfe,ls pote 'ff' y gmains unfulfilled (e.g. through

h . ity between alOes re h hthat erupts w en reclproc . d only be averted throug t e

h through IOcest) an canstealing from one anot .er, . h The danoers of affinity are.s() .!rc:a.~u

I· f r ec ip ro ci ty b et we en t er n. -=-- -' h Id careful p a.YlOgout 0 •• i all and sociaIJ~£~a_~i!~~ation t at WO?

that the Plaroa su.p.2!.:~:!:!~_~h.ll~~s.!~--Y'd'-'I' ;.----.-nd necessary to the afflOe------'---;-- th differences un er ylOg a . place emphaSIS upon e . II Th s among the Piaroa there ISno

. h' d he eby SOCialorder as we. u, . I d

r el at io ns I p, a n t r . .. f i n if ic an t h ab it at s w it h m ar na ge r u e s a nsimple ass~i~tio.n of a classlfl~~tlo~ 0 Sf~he domains and tll.e.!U. Q!,cesso impo~tant

group identification: th~ classlftcatloll<l, 'h- rn~r;ia 'e sy,st~m, nor does it provlde_~.to cosmogony is..ll()tp!Ole.cted baclc()nt9Lc:: ,-.8' ..

means of identifyingsocia,lgtou(!s:. f the North-West Amazon, place great

~. The Piaroa, ~ do tho~e Oft~; ~~t~;~St~ets of people; for it is thro~g? the~e

emphasis upon t e marna~es _ n d"om~~'whose oris ins ""ere v.r_l!~.~!h~!Lintermarriages of the £i.rst~lar~e~:;'::lo:" the earth, that~kty'came to be and

separat~l~ce~?~~tloJ.l, .2_~~, ~--~~-} :fu;ever the individual's clan ~

tF iro iigl i which all Piaroa are cogn~tesh' tl.fay H ' clan is his origin and the home

. . bligates him 10t IS"11e. IS be f membership 10no way ~_-___ .- . oa believe that in after-life the mem rs 0

to which he renir-ns after death. The Plar . II separate from all other clans. h' a settlement spatia y - I . .

e ach cl an lt ve t og et er 10 . f ' 1 1b ei ng s d if fer en t fro m s el f. t I S1 0-separate from affines, from antmals'l rom

d a

f roe and the piCll-Pirana Waking-

h "1 the Bororo an 0 aconcept somew at Sl1~Il1ar to nd the North -West Amazo n cl an homes

Up Houses, but unlik~ the Boror? a I homes with no culture (ta'kwaru). beneath the earth the Plaroa after-ltfe c/n~ are be tapped by the living Piaroa

Therefore, no forces of life nor forces 0 cu turellcat~him for it is a powerless place. ' ) S .. f ". none can come natura y, . dl

from hiSsource 0 onglO, . . . . of after-life and of creation are polOte yAlso, for the Piaroa t~e s~atlal dlstlOc~lons h intermingling, clans completely losenot replicated in SOCial1.lf~w~ere, t roug

their spatial and social distinctiveness. b' . ed politically where distinctions'f' . f' nificant ha Itats,s us ,

The class I Icatlon 0 slg . d b litical competitors t o structure

of essential difference are actlve.ly ex~res~:th ~~uppression in Piaroa social life

their individual battles. Before dlscuSSlOg. e necessary to social order, and h· h despite such suppression ar f

o f d ifferen ces , w IC h I" I I s hall b riefly d es cribe as pects 0. . th e realm of t e po mca , 0 .

thei r exp ressIOn 10 f 1 'f' th e later dis cuss ion (see verlOg ,Piaroa cosmogony for the purpose 0 c a~1YlhngS . "Shamanism in Lowland

d " nted 10 t e emlOar ."The paths of sacred wor s, prese . I Congress of Americanists 1982, 10

South America" at t~e 44th Inter~:~~apiaroa cosmogony and the Piaroa clanManchester for a detaded account 0

system).

. I' I nce and chaosPiaroa cosmogony: prtmeva VIOe

. . bolism 01 evil (1969: 178), that "evil is asRicoeur notes 10hiS work, The sym



old as the oldest of beings; evil is the past of being." As in the myths of the ancienr

civifizations of the Middle East about which Ricoeur isspeaking, Piaroa mythology

tells also of.a violence of power that is inscribed in th~!i8!!!_~L~~j!!~; it iS2-

principleofv~!~~ce ~h~~~blishes while it~troys (see Ricoeur 1969: 182-183).

The p,owerful and unrame51{>Qwerslet loose on earth to do the job of creation

' ;l( prove~~truct'fve.!.;~~i~~r:t~~s~_!~~~~~_llJ:~~ as unbounded forceswithin a social world. For the order they created to remain intact, these mighty

powers at the end of mythic time were~~d out of the W9..~~_9.f!~~~~1to other

worlds where they are now housed in relative safety in bounded form out of society

where their evilness, or their potentiality for evil, can more easily be controlled.

Before the terrestrial and celestial worlds were created, all of the power

sources of the universe were housed beneath the earth's surface) its face yetunconstructed. In mythic time-as theseSi:ib~~~'~;~-;'~came slowly

unleashed on earth, it was their force that was responsible forthe creation of all

~s and ~~.~..E~e ~~~~~~rse and1ortheIno;-I~dg~~t'hat aJlo;~d'i~r existence there. Most of the powers responsible for the form and life of the earth's

surface came from the subterranean land of Olo/Da'd, a chimericall!pir/ An~-:;:conda. It was through the means of two great mythic affines, Kuemoi and Wahari,~ . . .

whose births were the deed of 010/ Da 'd andwhose powers he gavethem, that mOst

of the elements of the world of the Piaroa were created. The EQw~s the

Tapir/ Anaconda transmitted to these two demiur,Be~'k~ere~.~.~~_ill~~~'!.,._ opposed in result. They were the forces that~~.2Ii'the Master 07the aquaticdomain, brought to the earth's surface from his birthplace in ~~~-gUtw.e;

e.g., the cultivation of plants, cooking fire, ornaments, the powers of the hunt

---:curare, the hunting powders of sorcery, fish'poisons, the hunting dog, while'~ah~;t, the Master of th~~~!=reated the t6pQgf!E.~LQ.Lmeeartft,its naturaleIe;n~nts: its mountains, its rocks, its river systems, its rapids. The forces of the

Tapir/ Anaconda associated with these two sets of creation, that of culture as

opposed to that of the natural elements of the eartha'rid its sky, were different'inquality, if not in strength:-Yhe powers of Kuemoi were venomous and evil in their

wildness, while the powers of Wahari were relatively controlled and benevolent in

their force.The oyposition of wildness a~~~.r:tr~l is reflected in the typeof beingseach was further responsible for creating as mythic time moved on -beings who

were but aspects of their respective powers and, as such, helpers in the continual

power battles played out between these two most powerful sorcerers of mythictim~ ~

The sourceof culture on earth, culture in its origins, wasthen, of the poisonous

and wild forces of ~~~l:given to him in the form ofEisonous hallucinogens byhis father, Olo/Da'd.-1i:lthough Master of culture and cultivation, Kuemoi created

all the poisonous snakes and insects of the world. He poisoned all large rock

formations and the streams. He is Grandfather of boils, the Father of biting and

poisonous fish, and the Creat?r of poisonous toads. He is also the Grandfather of

sleep and the Master ofSneMtrhe crocodile,the cayman,and dangerous fishareKuemoi's family, as too are the opossum and the yulture, the former an omen for,

and the latter an (!aterof,jungle animals. In short, all dangerous and biting animals

. . d f b e' s c la ssi fie d as " ju ngl e a ni ma ls" (deaand allthings poisonous 10thiSWOhrl:;.. IOt~emSeivesare Kuemoi's fami~

that includes t e ~oa '_ .ruwa), a category "Kuemoi's thoughts," Thus, in Plaroacosmogon.y,creations andclassedtogether ~s f K emoi and it has its source In

cul;;'i'reis of the untamed, pOls.~nou:r x :wer ~ th~e of the jungle (i.e.,the Piaroa

Kuemoi's ~adness. Asthe ~~::~i;:'l~s ~:~nous on~,as wildas are his own mad and Wahan before them),. ~ ;7he arden plants, are poisonous. powers of sorcery. Even hiS chddre , d gd ers of darkness is partially tamed I I

Culture, made of the poisonous an mal(~ow 'mate elements of the universe.h treated the natura lOaOl h' f

b (~'lrces0 a. c f h 'un Ie spends much of myt IC ,

aha iKuemoi's son-IO-Iawand ~asterf 0 t ~~e~i but also to transform his f tl .--~ttempting not only t~ st~al cuf ture

s ~~~their safe use by jungle beings. As 1 ,1

spoils into tamer, more efficaCIOusor~e wer in control The forceof . . f c ontrol Wahan represents e . 2 ' . i

KuemOIISpower out 0 , d' d from non-poisonous halluclO08.en~ Ihis spectacular acts of ~reation w~ :~~~: dwelling in the subterranean home Of\ "given to him by the Taplr/ Anacon a h' f Wahari was called "Master of his birth. As creator of most of the eart fSdeaktures'andnight Wahari was Master ,

" K . a s the Master 0 ar ness , . 1 \the world. As uemOiw . h k He was also the Master of !u~ \

h· wer olacedthe sun 10 t e s Y . : ~ , - h h' ,1,' \

of light -~~ • 'u d M f their house He created throug IS.~. I h n human in form an aster 0 . P' f .aOimas, t e__ -'--~'db' d fthejungle' healsocreated the laroa romtho~ghts-;11branch animals an ":~~.Jl0 fl' ' . he often ;ransformeJ fi'i'inself fish hecaught in their lakesof onglO

k ·He wdasa let-his own thoughts, to do the

. b ' d d e agl e h aw pr o u ct s 0 .

i nt o h um ml Og IC a n h ' h d I 'n to I' t th us in c ont ra stt o K ue mOi. d' cesovert eeart an "

fantastic, to flygreat ISt.an. f his own thoughts, e.g.,the predatorswho also transformed himself IOtOaspects 0 11.! i

~Uif\O<.CiO'h"", jaguar and vulture. K . nd Wahari re.eresent the fractioni~~a 02~,2L! ' ~Asgreat sorcerers, uem~,_ .-. T . / A conda 8.odwhose home was '61/\J(/m,/\ i)

the powers of Olo!Da'd~ the ~eduPKrememol'~sPdlraug~:er Through the intermarriage 1 . h • . . ~ . ~ _ . ' , ;h h h Wahanmarn ue . d . '-'V,........, beneat t e eart . ~._--'d h h h ir associationwith distinct omalOsers oppose t roug t e .of these two great pow, .. d wl'thl'n earth- socialrelations cameh' . in withm water anofthecosmos-t elrong . . Ta ir/Anaconda god became expressed oninto existence, and the fertility.of

lt~e 1 lthe emergence of the social state in

earth. as ~ociety,or more Pt~~ls:f~~:1ere~ionship so established remained amy th iC ti me s. H owe ve r, -- --. .t A s m en ti one d a bo ve m os t

d out in blatant non-reclErOCIy.treacherous one, acte h bh se two demiurges over the elements,Piaroa myths tellof the du~lsfo~ ~~~~ ~:h:r was responsible for creating a~d the forces and the domalOs w ICf nted J : ungle animals as food, while

II' K . the Master 0 water, wa - - . f cOntro 109. u em Ol , . . .' h o is o~ ous t ra ps t ha t ~ ue mO l se t or Wahari was usually adrOit 10 escaplwn

gth

e.p t d culture It was only with hisd h' f '1 In his turn a an wan e.. I

Wahari an I~ ami y. ., d h' h t he receiv~dthegift ofcultivatedpantsmarriage to~, KuemOls aug. ter

h,t a

W h I'spent much of the remainder of

'. Af m rrylOg er a ar and their process 109. ter a. f ' K moiand trying to tame them for his

h· · ~alinl!'cultural artifacts rom ue - d b hmyt ICtime ~~~- -. .. - - 0 - _ ..- 11' I ndcultural artifacts owne y t eown use. In the end he stole as we ntua a

"fathers" of the jungle ani~als.. d l' owgiven to the Piaroa, one ofhisAllculture that Wahan receive or sto e ISn



o wn cr eat io ns ; b ut t he y d o n ot t od ay r ec ei ve t he f or ces o f c uI 't he en d o f my th ic ti me W ah ar i ki ll ed K ' . " tu re fr om W ah an . Atinvasions upon his jungle domain' W h u~mholIn ret~liatlon for his cannibalisticf ' , , a an t en was killed bI m be f h'

_ amdy In revenge for his asocial sins, especiallyf h' , em, rs 0, ISown

:; lC_~~~eru, (Kuemoi became reincarnated on earth or .IS_.I,~~~t with hiS sister,

/.<ta,eJi) Both Kuemoi and Wahari then w k'II d f a~~cg!l, ' ,and Wahari as/ / '--Both lost the .s.ihtgiven them by :heir T' ~re/AI e °d r t elr social Irresponsibility,

I - aplr nacon a creator th 'Id f cu, t ure and t he forces to tame it - to o ther bein s - ~ W I orces of

,existence beneath the waterfaIIs-ofili'e"' I" ~h'ewho now !tve an ethereal

th Piaroa today receive the knowled e1r

cedestla omfes,~~ods thatan powers 0 cult Th-'~-"-'~

are today housed 0':l~ the terrestrial world where ' I~~;', ese strong forces

too destructive, wild and poisonous to 'f SOCIa I e ISplayed OUt,forcessocial world, The powers ofWahari andrKemaln 'Ir~e aS,unbounded forces within a

d u emO I l ve w it hi n t he cr y I b o f ~ who now own these forces, _ sta xes a ~

T he l es so ns f ro m t he m th ' 'I I possible if such forces roa~ed l~~::t/ ushtrate kt~atno orderly social life would be

, or t e ta Ing Their tonti d IeXistence would encourage as it did' h'" nue un cashed

, In myt ICtime acts of c 'b I' ,madness and stealirw -all ' I " ann I a Ism, Incest

" ..., ~;O~ asocla compulSIOns mocking it; .reCiprOCity (and resulting tranquillity) upon h' h' h ' e very rules of , '" W IC In t e Plaroa vie ' f ItS C Ontin Uity IS dependen t A s will be d' d be'I w, society o r h ' ISCUsse ow the prope be '

t e safe exchange relationship is th ' d' r, or trer said,-=--'"'7""""' , e reciprocat e o ne and 't ' I h

repeated reCiproCity that the peril ' '~r ':>'h'~ " I IS on y troughintrinSIC to t e In law reI t ' h'

av erted, that th e d ang er o f ess ent ial diffe b - a Ions Ip can bef ' rence can e negated On th h hor sOCietyto continue, the forces of culture m t ' IIbe f ', e ot er and,

and also to protect it. us Stl, part 0 It, both to give it life

The individual and the domestication of culture

We saw earlier that in Boro ro and No rt h-West ' ,fo rc es a re o wn ed b y cl an s an d t he ' , A ma zo n SO Cl et le s cu lt ura l

b ' Ir source remains clan property h " h: ne at h t he ea rt h w it hi n t he p ri mo rd ial h ome s o f w er e It IS o us ed

Plaroa, the forces of cultnre belon!8 to no ' I eachbclan, In contrast, ~~ theb-~--'--~- socia ~p ut to th ad d --, rought ~ackJQ!.<L~,Qcietythrough indivlduaTIni' .' < : . B , s~~n they areresponsibility It' f -- "h""'-'-'d--~-"'""""'''' ow tlatlve and upon the Individual's

.. ' , IS rom t ego s that the forces are ta d ' I'f 't he ! tf e o f t ho ug ht s a nd Cu lt ur e" b o h h ' d ' . p pe t o g iv e I e (ta 'kwariJ),

. , , t to t e In IVldual livin' ,s OCi et y It Sel f. S uch fo rc es a re b ro u h t I 'n t ' h g In s oc ie ty a nd t o

h d ,~--~ osoclet~roug.l!.!,hesk'll f h hw 0 omestlcates thcit:$ildness b h ---'---li'- . " ...!._ ,'~...!-!,s ~mao

ficlPS'otne;;;;=d~ Iikewi;, 6~i%;e ;::Itn~t dem wI~hln his \~s of knowledge or

..The Piaroa in general place reat valu omestlca~ed "':I~ In the individual.

(adiupaw;) life, The first formal I g , h e upo~ one s ability to lead a ~. --- earning t at a chtld underg . fles~~

g iv en t o i t b y t he s ham an o n h ow t o l iv e t r ' II ' o es co nSi st s 0 essonsCOntrol. The Piaroa consider such t " anqui y With others: they are less02J..QQ.t::;;,"'-' ralnlngaspartofa"d " .. ~chi ld must take more and more I . " omest lcat lon process: the

persona responslbl!tty (t'k k own actions; he must control the forces of I h a wa womena) for his

. cu tureast eyco ' h' h'grows old er one mus t decide for o nes el f h me Wi t In 1m, As one

----------, "------ . o~_!llany a.nd,which powers - those of --..,-~_..."

hunting, fishing, chanting, or sorcery- from undomesticated sources one can

handle. within oneself. These powers are acquired through the guidanc;-;)fth;--

-knowfedge~bieshaman who cautiously ~~hem o~.!!~.!~!.~~lt~.?~~~g!!~:"

._gods, As the individual grows he receives an increasing quantity of beads from the

gods, and it is within these beads worn internally that the powers of culture taken by

one are housed and thereby domesticated~ne's in~!~te, with the least of ~

powers embodied in it, is made more complicated as foreig!!..dem~m~ enter it both

at one's will and without it~eini:iefcWt.hl~i<;!f the shaman i;-of course

especially elaborate, and thus it is he who must show the most control: proper

control of emotions implies the taming of cultural forces within one, Vicious

feelings, evil intent, and jealousy are annoying but not considered harmful in the

man who has taken withiOiiTmself few powers from the gods; while such

characteristics in a shaman, thought to be caused by his lack of proper

domestication of ~;~rS~tentially both wild and evil, are understandably thought

to be highly dangerous t.~~!~,,!~!f~e as an indication of uncontrolled cultural

power within him that can kill at whim, cause natural disasters, prevent the

increase of animals, and cause the infertility of the land.

The forces of culture taken into oneself do not enta~ an ownership of their

product, but rather entails the ability or the capacity !2 use it. The shaman as a

political leader, and as one who has domesticated within him larger quantities of

culture's force than have ordinary men, still has no such claim of ownership, Today

the Masters of land and waterown the domains of water and jungle. They are not

Wahari and Kuem~~the jungle spirit, Re'yo, and the water spirit, Ahe ltamu,

both of whom acquired their control over these habitats at the end of mythic time,These two spirits guard their respective domains, protect them, make fertile their

inhabitants, and punish those who endanger their life forms, They also cooperate as

guardians of garden food, The r~levant Point 'fsObviously that the habitats of lanel

and water, and their products, are not owned by m~n, Such control is not a part of

the scope of political power in Piaroa society, a control which would be viewed by

the Piaroa as very dangerous power indeed. The shaman leader has no power to

order the labour of others. During the great ceremonies that he presents he invites

others to labour for him and the community; he never orders such labour, It is his,

duty to control and fight. against the wild forces of culture that wander into society

from outside it, and not to control (overtly, at least) the social behaviour of

individuals within his community, each of whom must manage his own control of

self, a private matter where one must keep domesticated the forces of and the

capacities for culture within oneself .

Politics, affinity and mythic classification

I

The mythic message, and the Piaroa understand it this way, equates society and

its possibility with affinity, with the coming together of unlike items,~$.ty exists

only through the interaction of unlike entities and forces that are potentially highly

dangerous to one another: the relationship between wife giver and wife receiver is

an inherently perilous one, since in-laws are strangers who may eat you or steal



from you. The danger intrinsic to the in-law relationsh'through proper reciprocity In r . .=~h",~,-----:---_IP can only be averted " ecogntzlng t at socIety I'Interaction of differences of being I'k can on yeXIstthrough the

, sun 1 e one another and i d d's uc h m in gli ng is v e ry h aza rdo us t he P ' d ' n un e rs ta n I ng t ha t

, l ar oa e xpe n a g ood d ea l of s . Ien er gy in m as ki ng th e p ri nc ipl es o f dm - d OC la st ru ctu ra lBut here ca-u-t-io-n-l-'s~i'n""order for this is erbence_~~~.~~~~.t1~0f.achievin8 safety.P' ,an 0 servatlon that by no h Id

laroa behaviour: it is within the co 1 h ' means 0 s for allships are veiled while in relationshipmsmbeuna°huse(ItIo'de) that affinal relation-h' tween ouses within I" I .

t ey are stressed (Overing Kaplan 1984). a po ltlca termory

In keeping with the view that societ can com' .~oming together of dissimilar forces.the j:ral relatio:~~~o ~;.g only t~rou~h the

In-laws, and pOliticalrelationstlips are acted out in the i~~~ ~~r~~.s~lety ISw.ithK~plan 1975). One competes politicallywith one in an aff a Intty (OveringWIth one classed as a "father," "broth~~;;;'o~''';~;~·;;-&Thl.l!~f~t~~Q..U'. but never

(975), a Piaroa man establishes himself ff '. have wntten elsewherelaw," "brother-in-law" or "son l'n I "as a Ine -In t e categoryof "father-in.

• - - aw - to most me . h' h' .classifying them he can cO,m,oetewith th h n WIt In IStern tory. In soh f ' '!."'-- •••""--....;:: em as s amans as well a . .

t em or the marriage of their ch 'ld ·--·'"~·':bl;-·· ..' s negotiate WIthterritory, cosmologicalsymbols o/poren or SI .~ng~ In politi~al battles within the

which Com . .~tructuretheir co;er ~;~~ ~ t ~semantic conditions through

~er of ucino~' transform h pe ' . s s amans,t?SX ~anthrou&h.~~eo . h ".. ......•.... _-!....!mselves.lust as the cNinlUrgeS:dicl. h'

~. t ey renrcan transform into ea Ie havif-- . .. .. .. .. ,, < - "" ~ tn,!!}y!~!£_ thunder, crocodilea~d vulture, Eachty; of transi anaC?nd:: ~ttle~nake. jaguar,type and order of nower Some transfor.m t' ..?rmatflon Istmgulshesa specific

"- Of . L:::', a I ons a re 0 Ku em oi a nd h. .- < " ' . . - - - - " ' . mant estatlons of power that are both(evtf'llndun

0 •

as suc are~, mations ofWahari those who ""'Y<-?'h/?J!,t"rolled. Others are transfor-. - 1 ' sepower ISt at ohligh~ and not f . hO

po iticalcompetition. one gives one's 0 \../ j . . 0 eating ot ers, In"father-in-law" or "son-in-Ia" h~~eb-~t -a claSSIfIcatory"brother-in-law"

. w - t e attn utes of Kuemoi. His . •out of Control' he ISa user of poiso h 1 1 . - _ . . . . . . . . power ISpower

, nous a ucmogens' he transf h' If anaconda, becoming Kuemoi i~d . h': orms Imse intotra'7;Srorms himself into )'aOuar °h

lng.-boashISreincarnation on earth; or, he

'f 0 - - = . , w a IS t the pet of K . d 'manl estatlon as hunter One's O' uemOl an hIS

b '. . pponent IS a sorcerer who send f I d'e com ln g I n thi s a ct ion a c an ni ba l ju st a s K . d ' . s ata I se as e,

;)t by the Piaroa to be a proc~f ~. ue(molwas:. IseaseISalwaysconsidered S h f' In e~ see Overtng Kaplan 1982)

uc use 0 m lthlc c~assificatlonIn t es tr uctu . f .houses within a territory d~-~ot:filpran"- d . nng 0. po!:~~~~!tles between

but r ather ~eaks of s cific m t .y or enng that ISmetaphoric in natureinfluence of halluci~o~ge~~s'a s-~hea ~~Icalosht~tes.In one's drugged state under th:

.'\ ' aman sees Imself tr f d h7Wahari, and sees his Opponent transfo- d K a~s orme as t e handsomev h 0' rme as uemOl The sha d

suc VISIonsas literal truth and act h . man un erstands- ' s upon t em as such Metanho .

~r:,tt,9logythat explicitly says that the "f t .". '~=:f' rconverts tnto an" " " " " " ' S i " an astlC IStrue,

uch language -and transformations_ tak f .,elements and forceswithin the h .en r?m the claSSIfIcationof the~:::I:;;;-:::==~7-~~~~~co~s~m~os as t ey eXIstedIn myth' 0 --

usedto structure relationships with 0 th h lCtime, must not bed Off . In e ouse: one must neve t h .I er enc e to o nes el f o f a ff ine s l ivi n . h I f . . r s r es s t e e ss en ti al

g WIt one. polltlcal competition within the

house becomes serious in nature, the house immediately fissions. Thus. it is the

potential affine who is Kuemoi, the cannibal. the user of untamed cultural forces. t

He is ,onewith whom no marriage excha~~ltas be~o(l'-0E!.:~~~d,or with whomone's ties of actualaffinity are weak. The givel of disease. the cannibal. is one with

whom one is in a relationship of unfulfilled reciprocity or. indeed. negative

reciproci.ry.The relationship between actual affines who live together within the

house must not be modelled upon the relationship that held in mythic society

between the two archetypical affines who were enemies of one another (see

Overing Kaplan 1984).

The Piaroa classifytheir relationships with others on acontinuum that moves

from danger to safety. and from difference to identity. This is not so unusual aclassification, an increasing scale of social amity; but there are some interesting

aspects pertinent to this discussion of their classification of others through

. categories that denote various degrees of socialdistance and social nearness. The

• most distant and dangerous relationships are withilO17iialsand member~of ot~_~!

tribes where the natural relationship of Piaroa to them isone of !illlli!g:the danger

isthat of death. both for the Piaroa and. through Piaroa action.for both animals and

foreigners (through sorcery). Because they have the right to kill members of both

categories and to take from them. the Piaroa are in a non-kinship relationship to

them. They are not called "affines." Most Piaroa deaths are caused by sorceret!

from other tribes. and the Piaroa rev~uch deaths through what modern Piaroa

young men refer to as "the Piaroa~mbj' a powerful revenge magic combining t'\)k:-.•..../)( potent poisons and certain parts of 'toe victim's anatomy which are burned

together. and sent through smoke and chanting to the sorcerer's territory wheremass killings are the result. The relationship. excepting that with the occasional

trading partner. is one of blatant negative reciprocity.

Less dangerous, but still perilous. are relationships with members of other

Piaroa territOries. Here, there is not a natural relationship of killing or of causing

disease; rather the danger is that of soc}.al.de~tD.and the relationship remains one

f I of negative rec,iProcity.One travels to other territOries and one takes food which

b cannot be reciprocated. or worse a wife -and then leaves. Except for formal

trading. the demands of reciprocitycannot be met. Soas not to facethe problem. the

individuals with whom one does interact are always classified as "kin." not

"affines." a classification that carries with it the connotation of extreme safety

amidst the perils of a strange land. strange food, and strange people.

Within the territory. where men classifymost men of other localgroups as.

affines. there is always the potentiality of achieving with them a relationship of

reciprocity. of establishing a reliable relationship of exchange. Suchdealings with

potential affines are by definition ones of unfulfilled reciEroci,ty,and the primary

danger is that such relationships can degenerate into those equivalent to inter-

territorial and intertribal ones, ones of negative reciprocity,

The safest relationships are, of course. those within one's own local group,

with both kin and affines who live there. TheJ1QY§~however. cannot exist as an

autonomous unit; for both shamanistic power and for spouses, it must~nd uE2n

~~uses, des~i~e..a!!~I()gythat l()~~i!~~my. The classificationof



aI(men within the territory as affines can partiaIly be understood as a ~cE8Iliti()1)e)f

~is deee.!1.2~: it isonly through affinity thats.eciprocirycanbe!£ili~: We see.

then. that on the continuum that moves from danger to safety and from difference

to identity, it at the same time moves from negative reciprocity, to potential

reciprocity and finally to fulfiII~"~tre<;:!.EE.9fl!Y.the intensity ofthe latter relationship

being so extreme that it ~!~os~~s.h~ ..al1!.~%or in Sahlin's terms (1972),"generalized reciprocity."Safety with the actualaffine is partially achievedthrough

proper reciprocity, and it is for this reason that the ~~.exc~!LE8.e among the

Piaroa is,fir~ed up.ona principle of.!~~l.e.roci!ycarried out through the serialand multiple repetition of affinal ties.

The endogamous marriage and multiple affinity (see Overing Kaplan 1981)

For the Piaroa'~~E±.comes into being through ~<!!1P8~~'2.~~~~~~u.~':!.~"!dissimilar elements: both mythological history and cosmologicalordering give this

~ess~~;;'~(;;;;the discussion of Piaroa mortuary dans where one lives with

K neither affines nor culture). It is this understanding about the nature of things in

the social and Cultural world that the Piaroa do t~L~Uo "i&!!QE~j!U~,~Ir.,relati9.E1~~~_Vli!:J.!i!l.d}~_~.9-IPn}.':I"nal~~. If the Piaroa were to use the mythic

classification of the domain of ~Q~ and that of !¥..~~~r as the language for ordering

their marriage exchange -as on the contrary is the case among the North- West

Amazon Indians- or indeed the distinction of "~~.v~::llllg':~!Q.~':ll~.~~!~.their own mQ.~~L~~~!P,they wouldalso be making the overt statement that actual

affines are creatures who are essentiaIly different from one"another and as suchliable to devour each other. Thus, .!Q.iwQt~,.!11£~..~~'!i~~9~ is one method of overriding the dangers of difference. of maskiQ8the very elements and forces of

which societyis comprised, or, if youwill,'any"d~aJisl!!of which it must consist. The

Piaroa are not wilJing to accept the implications forthcoming from the assumption

of essential difference, and it is through their very !tL~Qgl.cl~!ll_QL~llilQ&.L01Q.!!.Lma~ria~ that they ma'nage to understate the necessity of essential difference tosocial life within the local group. The most obvious device they use in ignoring

difference toward the end of safety is marriage with a close or at least welJ-known

relative within the house; and this ideal of local group endogamy, so strongly

stressed by most Guianese Amerindians, is but the other ~~ th~_(Q.iJ:U)fthriL

esually emehasize~E.9L~~_~.~.~~!llg~E.(see. for example, Riviere 1969a;Henley1979),

I have written elsewhere (1973, 1975) that !~JllE8e.r.~().11~~..among thePiaroa, within which dweIlalmost all of eachmember's conjugalkindred,do at least

on an ideologicallevel approximate the idealof an endogamous kindred. Th_~!r.e.~~.fiction is, of course, thatsociery as the isolated endogamous group that replicates

itsdf th~ough time-becomescompri~ed()LJhellS~~iatiQP()£ ."Iike"..items,consanguines who are s a f e f~~- o'~~~n~ther. a nd not of dangerous "unlik~;;;ff lnes:"

Here, we have with the Piarpa ~.~~.!e.gifl.8....~i~!~JJf"betweensociety as an idealworld of endogamous kindreds and society which includes the wider whole:

potential affines and political Opponents.

. I ' f b b oth kee pi ng ev er yoneThe endogamous mar!!~e not only Imp Ie.shsa.d~ty..... y . ' . l..~tU1ppn"kin" and ~--o------;-, - , d b ~zZL.tl!t; IstUKijQQ.v.s:...,~._"_. =

home with close relatives a~ Y!n~ 10 ;I< f h- - gh' it previous affinal ties"aifi~" it also is the marriage reclp~ocat , or t t~:umore marriage exchanges

-;ithin the group are rea~firmed, Inf Pla~oat~e~~~§hiP and the more unified the

enacted betwe:en

two afflOest~e sater t o~:a:riage ;xchange often found in the

group as a UOlt~f .cognates.I.t IS:nl~pe1979; Arvelo-Jimenez 1971), where the

Guianas (see RIViere 1969a, ~ y 1" I lliance and the unityofthe group,viabilityof the affinal reI~tionshlp, th~ o~l~a:ital eX~hangesestablishe~ a~ong

as well, are correlated With thehnum h d plicationof anyaffinaltie wlthlOthemen within the localgroup. In t eory,t e ~e u f sisters- is both a marriage

h t of brothers marries a set 0 . h'group -as w en a se . f' ofthe group as a whole, Wit 10d d' ted from the POlOt0 view ,r epl ic at e a n r ec lp roc a ' . 'd d t o b e di rec tl v r ~ipr oc3l te d a s10

a marriage tie oes not nee ' - l . . . : : , '1an endogamous group, ia ;;ithi;;~he group is at the leas~m41!.ecty

brother/sister exchange: any marr ~ f ry man within the group ideally• d "d ' exchange IOS0ar as e ve

reciprocate :as 10 10 If~Ct,. o~e sense, through endogamous marriage. ~

receives ~Wifefrom ~'thlO It, In and not Qllly:.L~~~.9~P..&£.t~I_.h.~tE!~J}_~!~~.Vveerv. n.otlon of mar~Jage~~£hinge.,.•_," ..~>. __ ." " II he one re-enacted time~,-~-~.,.~ . h nge espeCla y tIronically, it ~sth~o~ghthe mama~e e7t~c:nti~ually returned, that~i~~~~nces areond dme '8 "'0 w"h'O 'he house., e g "" does~~,,,,us • .u96~annulled and saf~tyachi.eved.If one VI~WS!ecliP'rC?~::~ osit!99=_._€"~~84) as the most Immediate !!l~_nsQitm.~~rQ8.~."_ ..EPL"·":ie where self and

Jnel others, the Piaroa .~ave through the :nd~~~m:~~ ::~r::other, carried thisothers are not only uOlf1edbut become 0 a

principle to its logical extreme., d 'th..affiniry the coming together In that socie!I itselfis for the Plaroa ~!:t~~w'-~"b;;', a philosophy of

' -~-( ff' ) nd cultural forces, endogamy: comesof unlike Items a lOes a ." h ' h ercomes to a certain extent the

i h "h If way' RQlOt w IC OV hsociety for tem,.!...--J! - d~hdk':'um thatsays that societycanonlyexist byt edangers ofthe SOCialstate an tel ments In short endogamy as an

f diff nd dangerous e e . ,coming together 0 . erent a f the social state thereby becoming a principleideal expresses the Plaro~,!~~!5~._. __...__ ..~__ .,_J

--=-----..---. . f . SOCialnatureunderfying a s..QCi~tyS~!~:~~_~_."~~.2!!_~".:c:~=. __ .,_, ..:.

f ' ' (s ee Ov er ing Ka pl an 1981 )Conclusion: elementary structures 0 reciprOCity

. . I o f Tr opi ca l F or es t Am er in dia ns t ha t t hei r 1I think it poSSibleto say 10g~?,;.!~,,,;--. '1 phl'losophyof the relationship

, d . ~r ~ll>roc~ntal a .. Inotions of proJ?C:r an ,mpro'l: h 'p of things that are different. It ISh e and the re atlons I ~ . ,iIi. ••• h I

of things that are t ,e12m

. to a dearer understanding of t e ifrom this perspectl~e tha~ v:

e~n cO~~res no matter what their content or \

proliferation of dualisms withm t ese cuh- P' ' oa the cosmologicalexpression of "'how they are playedout. We haveamong t

l e Lo

lar I d South American Indians and

h' hi h' k erygenera to wan .. .~the conundrum, w IC t 10 V d d ' of certain ambiguities 10 the

' bl' nce to an un erstan 109 . Iof consldera e Importa h the necessityof diffe.rencesto socia

. h . . I niverses t at states . .~ - hordenng of t elr socia u " f culture' but if is a world..w,ber,et C.•life -ultimately differences IIIthe f?rce:.o d 'hile d~econjoining of likec2.~i!l.&!o.&c:th~Eof..!uchdifferences 1m le.s. an er, w

< -(/t

, f-.



x x 1elements and forces impli~~S~rr.1Yand n~~jety, or an asocialexistence.

Both the Bororo a'llG1)i~vert th~~an8e£~.Ef'?J!yral 4if~!.~!1J1-a.!i~nthroughelaborate ritual transaetlonfhetween moieties, tELoughwhich "ritual roads" are

established between name-sets (see, for example, Crocker 1979; da Matta 1979;

~ Lave 1979; Melatti 1979). Through the titua1inversioQ,scommon to these systems,

where "I" become "other" and "other" becomes"I" -where the chiefof one moiety

is chosen from the other or the ritual representation of the totems ofone moiety is

acted out by the other- identity and difference between cultural (and social)

categories become as·blurredas through the endogamous marriage of the Guianas.

~~ ofthS,se societies,the principles of exchange are to som,e~xtent .erincj1?k~

pf metaphysjg. where the emphasis is not so much upon the attainment of a particular type of group formation, but upon the achievement of ~roper

I relationsh~s among beings of categories which are ;tew&l as s;gnl~cal{t1Y

\ different,ut ne~.!.m to one another, for society to exist. Such principles of

exchange also express a specific p<2liticalphilosophy which says that no man, no

group, can have sole ownership over the forces of cult~.~e.,or a set of them, that

would entail as well a control over their products.

Whether the 9.isti9ftio'!texR,r~§~edrelate to the classificatorylogic of ~mes,

to symbolic attributes of cosmic habitats, or, as in the classic case to "kin" and

"affines," or to the "marr~eable" and the "unmarriageable" as implied by a

prescriptive marriage rule, in each example such contrasts are employed in the

elaboration of exchanges that are clearly "elementary" in form, but an elaboration

that is ultimately cultural in derivation,_and not social. ].c. Crocker comments

(1979: 296-297), when speaking on the elaboration ofstructures among the Geand the Bororo, that categories founded on other sources of distinctions than .those

forthcoming from a prescriptive marriage rule "can possess precisely the same

inexorable implications for social interaction which must express a logicalmodel as

i the most rigidly prescriptive 'elementary structure·... ~tead of "el~~_

~ systems of kin~~.!?~ria.s.e," wec~~~k I!l0.E~$~~il!L2L2t~tr;!lenta2-~ ..f ~!f!!£U!I,$S or recIgroclt}'," and thereby treat Guianese Amerindian sociedes,

societies of the North-West Amazon and those of Central Brazil as so many

examples of one basicstructure.

The implications for Amerindian social life of the elementary structure of

reciprocity ordering it is that ~iety itself becom~ a IQ&k.JQrma.!!ttajnin&.a__

balance, a proper relatiQnship among cultural items in the universe that allows

~ocie{y to perpetuate itself. ~il?rocity itself can thus be equally viewed as a

~cular~f!1g~~.(~Ls~If.~~~.tu.!.~i().'.l.l not of groups -which might entail thecoercive control of both people and scarce resources- but.2..~...!!latiQ..l!~h~a

perpetuation that counteracts the development of such control.

This paper continues the converration on Amerindian egalitarian political

philorophies that dfiiii.i;began in his work, Society against the state, where he

postulated that Amerindian societies of the Tropical Forest are societies withq,ut

I'h. b - 1 - " " 1 - Ai 0c . t . . < . _ t -r . . )

. d that the soc ial force of the princ iple of ,ec iprocit.1tolitical econom,es. He a~gu~ h stren th that it negates the possibility of

within these Lowland SOClet,es~as;uc /d gllow for the political cont,ol over the development of a leadersh,p t ,at wou a

another's /abour or the products .of , ! . . g Amerindian sodeties revolves

My own discussion of egaillananlsm am,o.n '", 't'"-those described for the. f p cilic structures 0_ reClgroCl !.

around the explorat,on 0 s e ~. dfor the Guianas- towa,d the

/ theNorth-WestAmazon,an h

Ge and the Bororo, or , f . I existence forthcoming from suc

f /d' A rindian the ones 0 SOCIa h

end of un 0 I ng m e , h es e st ru ct ur es o f e xc ha ng e m ay a pp ea r, t . eystructures. As contraIt,~g ~s t . the nature of society, one that enta,ls ~

nevertheless express a s,milar v~e~ 0 1 ~ t socT;iior;;iJolitical power that's

sophisticated understanding of U-~!M~!. 0 Id Thus this exploration I~ads meallowed control over scar~~!-$i~.ur~esh'~ t eAwor '~dian political philosophies, but

. h hi e·ftist,.,~s,:tns'g t Into m en . ."""c:._~), h ht o a gr ee w, t m U C °l e_ :: . 'n d' i de nt if y c oe rc ~~ 1J .. o" 'l §F 'W ,t t eto disa ree with his ar ument that Ame~ fa; ther the evidt~e/jeads one to

•forces of R ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 . / orces ext~rna~ to s~Clety.. a , h more dangerous than the

concJude%4tthe power that 's beln~;~l;ae:;so/:~;::er a sa/e, and a comfortable

f orces of nature would be to the esta ~s me J d nd the one consistently battled h . P we, that 's most _eare a ,

social order. T e coercIVe 70 I t struc~res of reciprocity 's pow~r

against through the playmg out of e emen ary,tiif;e' itself, which would enta,l,

that allows or the control over the orces ~ctiviiy a-;d its fruits. In short, the

among other controls, the control over econ~ 'p ocity and the one that gives each

element common to all of these structures OJre" l' ro: can have sole ownershi

If 'the rinci Ie that no man, no, I such socia orce, 's h h 'p would entail as well a contro over over the forces of culture when suc owners ,

their products.

Resumen

, 'nuar /a discusi6n sobre la fiiosofia politicaCo n e st e t ,a ba jo s e p er Il gu ~ c~ ~t ' b ' Lasociete contre I'etat, yen el

, I" Clasfres InIC,6 en su tra al° . d ' i nd ig en a 'g ua , ta na q ue . d d / a s el va t ro pi ca l s on IO Cl ed a e s S In

1 ' dades m igenas e . ' . J .

q ue p os tu M q ue , as S OC le I p ri nc ip io d e l a r eC lp ,o Cl da u t ,en e , I" V' h autorargumenta que e , I

economfa po ItICa. "0 ", d did 110de un liderazgo que permlta e , l pos,b,lIda e esarrO b '

tanta fuerza que mega a 'd I d ' 0los productos de este mismo tra al°' control politico sobre el trabal° e , os e ~~, ' de las soc ie dade s indlgenas se

Mi propia discusi6n del caracter 'g r:!a"sOde,eciprocidad tal como se dan (y'I' , d /a estructuras eSpeClJICa /a

centra en el ana 'SIS e s • B el noroeste de Amazonas, Y en sasl fueron descritas) ent,e los Ge y , ororo, en I s teonas IOciales indigenas que

Guayanas; el prop6sito de este traba1o,es eX Pt onstearntaesque sean estas est,ucturas de

, h t s Por mas con ra I r es ul te n de d IC a s e st ru c u ,a . d 't , 'm il ar e n c ua nt o a la n at u, a ez a

, d P an un punto e v's a s 1intercamb,o, con to 0 ex res , tes del pelig'o que sup one para ,a

gudamente consClende lasoc ie dad,yse mue strana I ' , I q"e se Ie permita c ontro/ar unos

"d n poder po ,t"O a •• d sociedad la ex,slenCla e u da gran parte con el punto e

' /" e lle va a c oncor l' en I rec ursos escaIOS. Bste ana ' SIS m d d c on su argumento segun el c ua

, b st01 en esacuer 0vista de C/astres; SIn em argo, e , , /asfuerzas de la naturaleza (que sonlos indlgenas identifican el poder coe,"tI1l0 con



externas ala sociedad). La eWienciadisponible noslle1la m4S biena/a conelllsronde

que el poder qlle /associedades intllgenas rechazan para poder establecer IIn orden

social apropiado y segllro, es mllcho m4S peligroso qlle /as/uerzas de /a natllra/eza.

EI poder coerciti1l0 mas temido y qlle m4S se combate a tra1les del jllego de /as

estructllras elementales de reciprocidad, es el poder que permite el controlsobrll /al

/uerz al de /a prop ia clll tllra , ine luye ndo , mtr e otra l cosa l, III c ont rol lobr e /a

acti1lidad econ6mica y IUI/rutOI. En otral pa/abral, el principio com';n a todal /al

estructllrtlS de reciprocidad y que Ie da a cada llna de estas llna gran /llerza locial,

sena/a qlle ning';n hombre ni ning';n grupo pllede pOleerpor II solo /as/llerzas de /a

cultura si tal posesi6n implicara tambien el control de SIISprodll&tos.

Elementary Structures of Reciprocity

Documents

Transcript of Elementary Structures of Reciprocity