Autonomy and Leadership: Political Formations among the Ashéninka of Peruvian Amazonia

Abstract

This article examines notions of hierarchy and leadership among Ashéninka people in Peruvian Amazonia. It considers the apparent disjunction between individuals' preference for a peaceful and autonomous everyday existence and the Ashéninka's renowned ability to form large-scale cooperative groups under powerful leaders. Responding to recent anthropological writings that recognise the variability of political forms both across and within Amazonian societies, the article focuses on the social and political preoccupations that can be seen to underlie both social forms among the Ashéninka. It argues that individuals believe that peaceful social reproduction is best achieved by acting independently and respecting the autonomy of others but that aggregation and differentiation remain an option in circumstances where individual action would be ineffectual. The article also examines how the Ashéninka use outsiders as effective organisers that also symbolise the problems of coercive power.

Keywords:

• Egalitarianism
• autonomy
• power
• leadership
• Amazonia

Notes

1. The Ashéninka are part of a larger ethnic group now known as the Asháninka, and previously referred to as the Campa. This group, in turn, is part of the greater pre-Andean Arawakan linguistic group which includes the Yanesha, Matsiguenga, Nomatsiguenga and Piro (Yiné). Recent work has suggested the presence of certain characteristics that are common to Arawakan societies, including ‘institutional social hierarchies and hereditary chiefly ascension’ (Heckenberger 2002:111). The Asháninka cluster, however, seems to stand out from this overall trend (Hill & Santos-Granero 2002:19) and while all of the Asháninka groups and their neighbours the Matsiguenga, Nomatsiguenga and Yanesha are culturally and linguistically similar there seems to be particular variation in the case of political organisation. This is markedly true in the case of the Yanesha, who have ritually and politically powerful shaman-leaders (Santos-Granero 1986). Even within the Ashéninka subgroup there seems to be a distinction between riverine and inter-fluvial populations, with more hierarchy apparent among the latter (Santos-Granero & Barclay 2005). Hence this article should be understood as relating specifically to the groups that I studied on the Ucayali river (it is for this reason, rather than any belief in geographic determinism, that I will occasionally refer to the people with whom I worked as ‘Ucayali Ashéninka’), although my theoretical insights are more widely applicable.

2. While the autonomy of families is notable they are still interconnected, particularly through the cultural institutions of beer drinking parties and trading partnerships that, I argue (Killick 2005), work at the local and distant level respectively to draw individuals and families into wider networks while allowing them to maintain their autonomy and independence.

3. While space does not allow me to give full consideration to the question of gender equality I believe that the same underlying ideal of equality can be seen within Ashéninka gender relations as can be seen between individual men, with individuals able to prevent their domination by others. Men and women's activities can be understood as complementary: women produce manioc and manioc beer while men procure meat and monopolise relationships with outsiders. As each individual relies on the activities of his or her spouse to survive and be part of Ashéninka society an essential parity is retained. Thus, while particular relationships might be unequal owing to the specific individuals involved, in general, neither gender can be understood as dominant (cf. Veber 1997; Rosengren 1987 : 95).

4. Such an observation negates older ideas of evolutionism that often underpinned studies of Amazonian egalitarian societies (Ruedas 2004:25) such as Lévi-Strauss' suggestion that the Nambikwara were of particular interest because they offered ‘one of the simplest conceivable forms of social and political organization’ (1967 : 47).

5. The word mestizo is used locally — descriptively and self-referentially — to refer to all people of mixed heritage. It is stands in contrast to indigenous.

6. Veber, following the work of anthropologists in other Amazonian societies (Fock 1963; Rivière 1971) notes the role played by a person's ability to speak well in the relative influence and respect that they command (Veber 2000 : 38). Wagner's relative influence could be related to this ability. However, in this case I believe oratory skill is of secondary importance to Wagner's status as an outsider. Similarly, among the Ashéninka themselves, I consider oratorical skill to be of lesser importance than other aspects of an individual's position and skills.

7. Métraux described Juan Santos Atahuallpa as the ‘quechua messiah’ who in 1742 led a large rebellion by the Asháninka and other highland groups against the Franciscan missions that led to twenty years of intermittent warfare with the Spanish authorities and resulted in the subsequent isolation of the region for over a century (Métraux 1942, see also Brown & Fernández 1991 and Bodley 1971: 5–7).

8. It could be argued that the fact that the Ashéninka were paid in Melvin's camp gave them an incentive to work harder. However, they are paid a daily rate, rather than for the amount of timber removed and therefore, from a purely economic point of view, it would actually make sense for them to work more slowly when working for timbermen, than when working their own timber. More generally I do not believe that pure economic considerations are the most important aspect of Ashéninka timber work (Killick 2005; cf. Hugh-Jones 1992).

9. The taking on of this official mantle is something of a double-edged sword as while it appears to legitimate a man such as Agustin's position while also giving him preferential access to outsiders it also means that he bears ultimate responsibility for organising unpopular communal labour and the continued presence of teachers and other government support (cf. Rosengren 1987:183; Fisher 2000).

10. It is notable that this limit to people's freedom of movement undermines a key aspect of their ability to resist their domination by would be leaders.

11. Other writers have considered this apparent paradox of Asháninka history (the apparent willingness of usually independent individuals to join together under a leader) and argued that it is best explained by a latent messianism in Asháninka societies (Métraux 1942; Varese 2002[1968]; Brown 1991; Brown & Fernández 1991). Personally I find little evidence of such beliefs in either contemporary Ashéninka society or in the historical record (cf. Veber 2003). This may reflect a genuine contrast between Ashéninka society and other pre-Andean Arawakan societies and particularly the Yanesha (cf. Santos-Granero 1988). However, it may also involve a degree of over-interpretation of the kinds of processes that I consider in this article. Unfortunately space does not allow me to fully address this issue here.