The making of the Amazonian subject: state formation and indigenous mobilization in lowland Peru

ABSTRACT

This article examines the links between state formation and indigenous mobilization in the southeastern Peruvian Amazon. Through an ethnographic and historical analysis, the article explores how processes of state formation in the Madre de Dios region have drawn indigenous people into complex interactions with outsiders. The article argues that these social relations, which are characterized not simply by resistance but also by subjugation, have shaped the Arakbut people’s struggles for land rights. Recent Arakbut engagements with a multinational oil corporation are informed by patron–client networks that work as a governmentality technique. By creating debt and exacerbating internal divisions, clientelism disciplines indigenous people, undermining their resistance to oil development and other forms of predatory state expansion into their territories.

KEYWORDS:

• Clientelism
• governmentality
• indigenous politics
• Peru
• social capital
• state formation

Acknowledgments

The research on which this article is based was generously supported by an Inter-American Foundation Grassroots Development Fellowship (Inter-American Foundation) , a John M. Goggin Award (University of Florida), and a Bourse du Legs Lelong grant (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique). I thank the two LACES anonymous reviewers whose excellent suggestions greatly helped to improve this manuscript. I am also grateful to Marianne Schmink, Thomas Moore, Enrique Mayer, Michael Brown, John Donaldson, Everett Frost, and Stéphanie Borios for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this article, and to Karen Rutland for her help with the edition.

Notes

[1]. In Peru, communal reserves are a type of protected area aimed to conserve wildlife for the benefit of neighboring native communities and other local populations. They are coadministered by the state and the beneficiary communities, but ownership remains with the state. Native communities are officially recognized corporate organizations of Amazonian indigenous families with a self-governing body and shared ownership of land. While in this article, the terms ‘community,’ ‘settlement,’ and ‘village’ are used interchangeably, the term ‘native community’ is used to refer only to those indigenous communities that have received official recognition as such. Native communities will be discussed in more detail below.

[2]. The Harakbut language has several dialects, including the Arakbut and the Wachiperi. In this article, I use the term ‘Harakbut’ to refer to all Harakbut-speaking groups, and the word ‘Arakbut’ whenever I make specific reference to the group that speaks the Arakbut dialect. I chose to use the words ‘Harakbut’ and ‘Arakbut’ instead of the more generally used terms ‘Harakmbut’ and ‘Arakmbut’ because they better represent the phonetics of the Harakbut language. This new spelling has been recognized by the Peruvian Ministry of Education and is how the Harakbut prefer to be called.

[3]. This meaning contrasts with the one used by political scientists, who define clientelism as the ways in which authorities and political parties exchange public jobs and other special favors for electoral support (Weingrod 1968).

[4]. A group of Arakbut malocas stayed at Shintuya only for a year between 1962 and 1963, after which they formed the settlement of Puerto Alegre (later to become Puerto Luz), where they remained under the influence of SIL missionaries.

[5]. While gold extraction in the Amazon required a concession granted by the state, in practice anyone could de facto appropriate a gold placer.

[6]. This process of fissioning is a common practice among the Arakbut and other Amazonian groups in handling internal conflicts.

[7]. One of the most progressive laws for indigenous people of its time, the 1974 Law of Native Communities granted the natives property rights over both agricultural lands and forests. The subsoil and water resources, however, remained as state property.

[8]. Rosengren (2003) and Veber (1998) have suggested that this collective identity may also have emerged from a sense of belonging to a body organized for collective action.

[9]. See Morin (1992) and Salazar (1981) for accounts of the role of Catholic priests in the formation of ethnic federations in Peru and Ecuador.

[10]. Puerto Luz, for example, received in 1986 a collective title for 38,784 ha of cultivable land, along with a use concession over 18,089 ha of forest.

[11]. Political parties did not represent an alternative to clientelism with the state. Dominated by whites and mestizos, who have often approached indigenous people with racist and authoritarian attitudes, political parties viewed the formation of indigenous federations in the Amazon with suspicion and hostility, or at best tried to absorb and control them (Smith 1996). This tendency to authoritarianism and cooptation created distrust toward political parties among the natives. In this context, FENAMAD took on the role of political parties and worked as a mediator between the indigenous people and the state.

[12]. According to Peruvian legislation, an oil concession grants its holder the right to explore and exploit hydrocarbon resources lying in the subsoil, but not rights to the surface land. When a concession overlaps land owned by third parties, including a native community, the concession holder should request the landowner an agreement about easement (right of occupation, of way, and of transit). If no agreement is reached within 30 days, the state grants the easement and the compensation to the landowner for use, damage, and lost profits.

[13]. While this policy represented a return to state intervention in gold mining after decades of deregulation, it was intended to increase tax collection and to protect the natural environment rather than to regulate the activity.