Ethnology Brazilian Style Author(s): Alcida Rita Ramos Source: Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Nov., 1990), pp.

452-472 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/656188 . Accessed: 12/10/2011 09:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cultural Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Ethnology Brazilian Style

Alcida Rita Ramos
Universidadede Brasilia

To write aboutthe work of our colleagues andour own is never an easy task, not only because of the close involvement with the subject matter, but also besomeone else's writings, there is always the risk of miscause, in characterizing distortions, omissions, and other injustices. What follows is the understandings, view of who has been conductingindigenousstudies since the someone personal of the field. My readingof eth1960s, and has, therefore,her own understanding nologicalproductionin Brazil will probablydiffer from thatof my Braziliancolleagues, and will certainly be different from that of foreign ethnologists. But, being totally immersed in the ethnological community of the country, I could neverpretendto pose as an impartialobserver. The reason I propose this exercise is twofold; one is to present to a nonBrazilianaudiencesome of the featuresof ethnographic work done in Brazil;the other is to addressthe question of the social responsibilityof ethnographers in theiractions and writingsregardingthe peoples they study. It is not my intentionto do a survey of the literatureon BrazilianIndians, this has been competentlydone by several people, among them Baldus (1954, 1968), his successorHartmann (1984), and Melatti(1982, 1984). Nor is it to exhaustthe field of personalstyles and biographiesof specific anthropologists, even if I have to focus on one or two major figures in the field. What I want to do is thatgive it specificityandidenemphasizesome aspectsof Brazilianethnography tity. Perhapsmuch of what is said here is sheer wishful thinkingor, at times, also an expression of frustrationand dissatisfaction. Be that as it may, ethnology shouldbe practicedwith a dose of passion andthat, I feel, is not lackingin Brazil. Perhapsour northernreaderswill have to make a certain mental effort to catch the implied ratherthan explicit tone of our discourse. Being outspoken is not one of the most salient featuresof Brazilianness.But such an effort can be, I hope, an interestingethnographic experienceof its own, a sort of "fusion of horizons" withoutfalling into the trapof confusion of premises. Some of the local into the English mode of thinking, color will necessarilybe lost in the translation but the effort of communicatingwith a foreign audiencewill perhapsforce me to make more explicit certainthoughtsthat might otherwisenever come out of the narrowspace between the lines. Ethos, Style, and Involvement studies of indigenoussocieties in Brazil have followed differEthnographic is a Brazilianor a ent trends, dependingbasically on whetherthe ethnographer
452

ETHNOLOGYBRAZILIANSTYLE 453

have foreigner.As Melatti(1982) has alreadypointedout, foreignanthropologists mostly focused on aspects of cultureand social organization,whereas Brazilian have tended to concentrateon the subject of contact and its imanthropologists plicationsto the indigenous peoples. This, of course, being the main trend, has its counterexamples (see Graeve [1976] as an example of a foreignerdealing with contact,andDa Matta[1976, 1979], Melatti[1977, 1978, 1979], Viertler[1976], Viveirosde Castro[1986] as some examplesof Brazilianshandling"traditional" culture). Most ethnographieswrittenby non-Brazilianslimit the informationon the contactsituationof the Indiangroups in question to a brief historicaldescription that accompaniesbackgrounddata provided to contextualize the analyses that constitutethe main body of the work. It does not mean thatthese ethnographers, as if unawareof the politics of contact, are in searchof the "culturalpurity" of BrazilianIndians. It is rather,or so it seems to me, the theoreticalintereststhey developin theirown academicmilieu at home thatorientthemto firstselect topics and then indigenous groups to match. These topics may range from submerged symbolic lineages, to the social role of music, to concepts of privacy, to the carrying capacity affecting an indigenous economy. All of these things can be treated-and often are-without reference to the inequality of interethnicrelations thatnowadaysweighs on all Indiangroupson the continent,notjust in Brazil. There is something uncomfortablyfalse in disregardingthis pervasive fact, for no matterhow "neutral"the researchtopic may be, it is impossibleto ignore the imposingfact thatthereis no longer an "isolated tribe" anywhere.An indigenous society can be, and should be, studiedfrom a varietyof angles, but to pretendthatthe consequencesof contactcan be convenientlybracketedout is to create an anthropological illusion. The privileged focus of Brazilianethnology on interethnicrelationsis, like most things, linked to a specific social interestand historicalcontext. It is associated with an attitudeof political commitmentto the defense of the rights of the peoples studied.Naturalas this interestmay seem to us, it has, nevertheless,produced a certainpuzzlement, if not discomfort, on the partof foreign colleagues, either because they prefer not to be sucked into the professionally dangerous meandersof political hassles, or because they feel thatone cannotdo both well at the same time. For instance, in a paperpresentedat the Work Groupon Indigenous Policy duringthe Fifth AnnualMeeting of ANPOCS (Associacao Nacional de P6s-Graduacao e Pesquisa em Ciencias Sociais), Anthony Seeger (1981) exhis pressed perplexity at the apparentlyimpossible task of combining academic researchwith political involvement, and his doubts as to whetherboth could be done equally well. Such impossibility is more apparentthan real. On the one hand, research topics such as mythologyor ritualmightbe examinedas if the whites did not exist, as if the Indianswere in a pure state of social isolation. But even here it would requirea great effort of abstractionto pretendthat contact has not affected the symbolic realmsof indigenouslife. The resultwould amountto somethingvergdedicate ing on ethnographic mystification.Even when Braziliananthropologists

454 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

monthsor years of their lives collecting and analyzing data on kinship, myths, spiritualworlds, or other supposedly "cold" issues, the treatmentdone to these topics is underlinedwith the more or less visible influenceof interethniccontact. On the otherhand, these same anthropologists are repeatedlycalled upon to participate, in a variety of ways, in the defense of indigenousrights.' They are not allowed (even thoughsometimes they have so wished) to be left in the peace and quiet of their academicoffices. Some of the workingtime that might be spent in theoreticalthinkingor in sharpening methodologicaltools is put into political action. This loss, however, can be compensatedfor by an increase in sensitivity, maturity,and commitmentto profoundlyserious humanissues. Some themes are more directly relatedto a political stance than others, Indian-whitecontact being one of them. In such cases, part and parcel of the ethnographicinvestigationis the position the researchertakes and the Indianshave come to expect and increasinglydemand. The Black Pantheradage of the '60s in the UnitedStatescan now be appliedto many a case in indigenousBrazil:you're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem. Scientific neutrality, either in the name of rigor in researchor of impotence in politics, is being less and less toleratedby both the ethnographer's peers and his Indianhosts.2 Moreover,intensive fieldworkamongan indigenoussociety or, for thatmatter, any otherhumangroup, is neverdevoid of involvement.Gift-giving, working with preferredinformants,answeringquestions aboutour own society and other bits of constantinteractionput the ethnographer in the middle of an unavoidable politicalscene, subtleas it may seem, whetherhe wants it or not. To takethis fact into consideration for purposesof the researchis the crucialpoint here;it depends on theoretical interests, professional style, personal sensitivity, a greater or smallerdegree of political naivete.3Even the superbethnography of Evans-Pritchardsuffers from the insufficientattentionthe authorpaid to the natureof his involvementwith the Nuer as an Englishman, and to the political strain under which those people were living at the time of his fieldwork. Some puzzling aspects of TheNuer, such as the role of prophets,arethe resultof his silence on this matter. There is no purely academic research;what there is is the rhetoricalpossibility andpersonalinclinationto exclude fromone's writtenworksthe interactive, political, moral, or ethical aspects of fieldwork. By the same token, engagement in political issues regardingIndianpolicy, time-consumingas it can be at times (writingup documents, accompanyingIndiansto Congress, to governmentaloffices or elsewhere, excruciatinglylong and convoluted discussions well into the night), is not exactly a digressionfrom a scientificallyorientedprogramof work. No science exists in a social vacuum, much less so in the case of ethnology. Furthermore,if we take this kind of engagementas being itself a subjectof anthropological thinking,then the apparent"schizophrenia"pointedout by Seeger becomes a perfectly valid course of professional action, in that observersand observedarebothseen as actorsandagentsin the same scenario.Afterall, in writing himself who constructsit, who chooses the an ethnography, it is the ethnographer tone, and shapesit to his own image, whetherhe admitsit or not. He is an integral partof it.

ETHNOLOGYBRAZILIANSTYLE 455

Seeger raised an interestingpoint, but it should be examined more closely, as there are some specific aspects of ethnographicresearchin Brazil that come in other anthropology-producing into the pictureand may not have counterparts countries. This would make an interestingresearchtopic of its own. But before that is done, it may be a bit prematureto judge whether or not it is possible to suc,,ed in both academicand activistendeavors.One thing is certain.Practically every ethnologistin Brazil, in one way or another,has some sort of involvement with the destiny of the country's indigenouspeoples,4 which reflectson the character of his research, his choice of topics, of theoreticalapproaches,fieldwork strategies,and ethnographic writings. Thereare, of course, many foreign anthropologists deeply involved with the defense of indigenousrights. Theirconcernis no less strongor effective thanthat of their Braziliancolleagues. The point I am trying to make, in response to Seeger's challenge, is that, unlikeBrazilianethnologists, NorthAmericanandBritish have a tendencyto make the option:they either stay in academia anthropologists andpracticehumanrights in the intersticesof theirprofessionaltime, if at all, or they give up academiccareersto dedicatethemselves full-timeto advocacy work. In Brazil, puttingtogetheracademicdutiesandthe practiceof social responsibility is not only frequent, but highly desirable and expected by the anthropological communityas a whole. It is possible that the natureof academic work in Brazil is such that it permitsgreaterfreedomof action than in the anthropological environmentsof the Anglo-Saxon world. This, however, would not be enough to make the difference.5 How has this Brazilianethnologicalethos come about?What are the historical and social ingredientsthatcombinedto producethis style of anthropology or, more specifically, of indigenousethnology? In her characterization of the brandof anthropologythat is practicedin Brazil, MarizaPeirano (1981) traces the birth of the discipline to the roots of the modernistmovementof the 1920s and the effort to build a Braziliannation. The responsibilityof the intellectuals was to construct a national identity based on whatwas "native." Artists, writers, sociologists, and otherthinkersdid not simply producework for their own individualsatisfactionor for the advancementof science as such. Their productionwas motivatedand orientedarounda civil responsibility vis-a-vis the consolidation of a well-defined nationality. Each one workedas a citizen, contributingsomethingto the new nation. Anthropologyapin the broadernapearedand blossomed in this context. But, while participating tion-buildingeffort, early anthropologistsalso took pains to differentiatethemselves from their fellow humanistsby creatinga discipline of theirown based on that privileged source of nativeness, the Indians. For nearly seventy years, the as citizen (Peirano 1985) has been a nationalfigure.6 anthropologist At the root of the humanisticflavoringof Braziliananthropologyis the inspirationof its founding fathers in early 20th century. Whereas in Britain and elsewhere the first anthropologistswere mostly physicists, medical doctors, exof the hardsciences, bringing perimental psychologists and other representatives with them a baggage of scientistic assumptionsand expectations, in Brazil, cul-

456 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

turalanthropology sprangfrom a traditioncommon to philosophers,writers, and otherhumanists,as Peiranopoints out. It is truethatotherprofessionals, such as medical doctors, adoptedanthropology,both physical and cultural. But, I think it is fair to say, contemporary Braziliananthropologyretains very few signs of their influence, apartfrom sparse contributionsto the ethnographyof a limited number of Indianor ruralpeoples. The principalmode of anthropological thinking in the countryhas no affinity with the exact sciences. We might trace a parallel with the developmentof ethnology in Francein the 1920s that was deeply influenced by the surrealistmovement (Clifford 1981). PerhapsPascal's famous distinction-esprit de geometrie versus esprit de finesse-might well be an apt im-

pressionisticimage to portraythe respective anthropologicalworlds in AngloAmericanand in Latintraditions. This humanisticslant of anthropologyin Brazil, and the recurrent social involvementof its professionals, may be due to yet anotherfactor, that is, the fact thatBrazil has been a colonized countryfor four centuriesboth before and after politicalindependencefrom Portugal.Such colonizationis not simply a matterof economic dependence.It also-and perhapsmost importantly-involves the hegemony of Euro-Americanideas, attitudes, and fashions that, directly or indirectly, invade the minds of the populationof countriessuch as Brazil which, in this respect, is no differentfrom otherLatinAmericannations. Along with such impositioncomes the reactionto it in the form of a posture criticalof things hegemonic. It is not surprisingthat this condition of colonized has shapeda style of social thinkingproperto Brazilianintelligentsia. Much of the intellectualeffort of social scientists has been devoted to dissect and understandthe historicalcharacter,the political twists and turns, and the social implicationsof such a predicament. This criticalposture,often but not always of Marxist inspiration,has had the effect of departingfrom the positivist style of North Americanor Britishsocial sciences. Braziliananthropology,having grown up in very close contact with the other social sciences that have a strong traditionof being highly politicized, has been influenced by the same spirit. That does not mean thatpositivism is foreign to Braziliansocial sciences, but when it is there, it is heavily shadedwith othercolors and otherinfluences(Velho 1982). The engagement of Brazilian anthropologistsin things political does not jeopardizetheirconcernfor rigorousacademicwork. The qualityof this work, as anywhereelse in the world, varies with individualsand with institutions,but the overallpictureis thatanthropology of qualin Brazilmeets international standards its own flavor.We courtvariousinfluencesandinspirations, ity while maintaining butarefaithfulto none. We speakthe lingua francaof anthropological theory, but retainour own thick and recognizableaccent. In contemporary Braziliananthropology,it is the Indianissue thatis the main focus of political attention, even though ethnologists dedicated to indigenous studiesare but a minorityin the profession. Why should this be? Of all the concreteobjects of Braziliananthropological research,indigenous societies are the best representativesof "Otherness." In studying an Indian group, the ethnologist does not have to create a methodologically desired dis-

ETHNOLOGYBRAZILIANSTYLE 457

tance, as is the case with workamongpeasants,urbandwellers, or othersegments of the nationalsociety. This distance, guaranteed by differenthistoricalprocesses and traditions,facilitatesthe ethnologist's work by reducingthe interferencethat too muchfamiliaritywith the object may produce.Thus, political involvementin the Indiancause is not so completely woven into one's own personallife (as is, for instance, the case of a feminist studyingfeminism or a homosexual studying the gay movement)as to impairthe critical sense that is necessaryfor analysis. Yet, BrazilianIndiansare our Others,they arepartof our country,they constitutean important ingredientin the processof buildingournation,they represent one of our ideological mirrorsreflectingour frustrations, vanities, ambitions,and power fantasies. We do not regardthem as so completely exotic, remote, or arcane, as to make them into literal "objects." Their humanityis never lost on us, theirpredicament is ourhistoricalguilt, theirdestinyis as muchtheirsas it is ours. I am not saying thatethnologistswho studyIndiansarethe only professionals engaged in humanrights activities in Brazil, nor that Indiansare the only sector of the country'spopulationto deserve thatsort of attention.WhatI am arguingis that the Indianquestion is a particularlyprivileged field for the exercise of the twofoldprojectof academicwork andpolitical action. For indigenouspeoples are the mostdramatic exampleof being oppressedfor being differentand, as we never miss a chance to emphasize, culturaldifferencesand social diversityare the soul stuff or vital principleof anthropology. In the field of Indianstudies, anthropologists find a political cause that is all the more worthyof fightingfor the deeperone goes into the understanding of the indigenous worlds. Of course, the understandingone gains is proportionalto one's dedicationto systematic ethnographicinvestigation, an investigationthat shouldcover as much culturalgroundas it is possible to cover, includingthe not so explicitly political spheres of their lives. The experience of several of us has shown that there is a correlationbetween solid ethnographicwork and effectual political action, not only because of accumulatedknowledge, but also due to the that such knowledge confers. authority I shall now try to identify some featuresof ethnographicresearchin Brazil and show the role they play in the shaping of indigenous studies. I must again insist thatthis is not an exhaustivesurvey of the field, but rathermy own view of it, focusing on some contributionsBrazilian anthropologistshave made to both of Indianproblems. anthropological theory and to a betterunderstanding In Brazil as anywhereelse where anthropologyhas been established as an ongoing academicinterest, fieldworkis a fundamental partof the discipline. The specificities of an academic career in Brazil have created a patternof fieldwork thathas hadconsequencesto the style of ethnologyto which I have been referring. On the one hand, the critical posture described above is part of our university and predisposesus to pay attentionto politically relevantissues in the trajectory field. On the otherhand, the carefulpreservation of academicqualityhas resulted in some importantand original ways of approachingcertain problems of wide interestto the professionat large. In orderto bettercontextualizethis point, I think

458 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

it is worthdiscussingthe conditionsunderwhich fieldworkis usuallydone in Brazil and some of the most relevantadvancesin indigenousstudies. The Field in Our Backyard Rarely has a Brazilianethnographer spent a whole continuous year in the field. The reasons for this are various, but we can mentionthree:limited funds, restrictions absencefromjobs, andthe field-in-our-backyard regarding syndrome. Fundingagencies tend to provide amountsof money far too small for long stays in the field. Althoughthis fundrestrictionwas much more acute in the '50s and '60s, it is by no means a thing of the past. The great majorityof research fundscome from governmentagencies, be they federalor state supported,and as such theirbudgetsoscillate with the changes in public spendingpolicies. Anotherfactorlimiting the time spent in the field is the difficulty of getting prolongedleaves of absence. Universityjobs, especially, tie the researcherto a work schedule that gives him a maximumof 45 days' vacation and, in some of them, a one-semester sabbatical. Being away in any other capacity involves a ratherlong bureaucratic process of requestto leave, with or withoutpay, starting of the at the department level and going all the way to the centraladministration to Minister of EduA even the abroad takes the further, university. trip process of his of the President the and that cation, requiring signature Republic. Shortage also discouragesabsences of over of faculty in many anthropologydepartments six months. We might say that doctoralcandidatesare nowadays the only ones with the time, disposition, and possibility (even the obligation)to spend about a year doing fieldwork. But this is of recent date, since the creation of doctoral programsin anthropology,especially at the NationalMuseumin Rio de Janeiro, and at the Universityof Brasilia. take shorttripsto Indianareasmainly duringthe Full-fledgedethnographers summermonths (December throughMarch). This pattern,of course, is closely linked to the notion that the Indiansare relatively near, at easy reach, illusive as this impressionmay be in some cases. For example, a tripto the UpperRio Negro area, to Amapa, Acre, or Roraima is almost as costly, if not more, in time, money, and effort for a Brazilian as it is for a foreign researchercoming from abroad.Added to these difficulties are the ups and downs of the official Indian policy with its erraticdecisions on whetheror not to allow "strangers"into Indian areas.7 Partlyas a consequence of these short-termvisits, Brazilianethnographers rarelyhave a good commandof the languageof the indigenousgroupthey study. or on the knowledge the Indianshave of PortuThey either rely on interpreters as it is, may relations,important guese. Giving priorityto the themeof interethnic Indian to the with the need learn language, very well work as an alibi to dispense as it presumesa long-standing experienceof the Indianswith nationalsanda fairly good commandof Portugueseon theirpart. How does all this affect the qualityof ethnologicalstudies in Brazil? Naturally,a style of fieldworkdone, as it were, in spurts, most often conductedin the language of the investigator,will produceresults that are very dif-

ETHNOLOGYBRAZILIANSTYLE 459

ferentfrom the traditionalbrandof ethnographya la Malinowski, involving one long, continuousstay in the field, followed by a permanentabsence or a short returnmuch later. In contrast, Brazilianethnographers maintainan ongoing interactionwith the people they study, amassingethnographic materialthroughthe years and never, really, cuttingoff theirties with them. We can draw some important lessons from this contrastof fieldworkstyles. In the firstplace, the Brazilianway of doing researchcalls into questionthe mystique of prolongedfieldworkas the necessaryrite de passage boundto guarantee a successfulentryinto the temple of academicexcellence. For, in theirpiecemeal research,Braziliananthropologists preservethe qualityof their writingsby a cuthe people studied, a tight theoreticalfoinvolvement with mulative, long-term a of clear delimitation the cus, problemsunderinvestigation,and an acute sensifor critical issues. Second, it raises the question of the adtivity sociologically of and a concentrated but synchronicfield researchversus vantages disadvantages field tripsthat are intermittent but recurrent and lasting for decades. In one case, we have a plethoraof fine detail and in-depthanalysisthatproducea dense picture of a society or part of it. In the other case, we have a gradualconstructionof a as the researcheracquiresfresh data and new people's profile thatis transformed outlooks at each visit to the field. The first style would be like a sharp, detailed, and heavily texturedstill photograph; the second could be comparedto a motion picture,as it is less focused on permanenceand more on movement. As the product of two differenttraditions andvocations, these styles demonstrate, once again, thatin anthropology a one-way road is out of place and out of time. Braziliananthropological studies are said to have a fairly high dose of creativity and innovativeverve.8 Self-indulgence aside, it should be recognized that some of the most influentialanalyticalviewpoints in South Americanethnology havecome fromthe worksof Brazilianethnographers, sometimesin collaboration with foreign colleagues. I shall now discuss two of these perspectives. Persons Are Good to Think Since the days of monographicworks, such as Wagley and Galvao's on the Tenetehara(1961), Baldus's on the Tapirape(1970), or even Nimuendaji's on the Sherente(1942), Timbira(1946), and Tikuna(1952), Brazilianethnography has changed its style of writing about indigenous societies. Selection of theoretical problemsbecamethe main thrustin choosing a specific society for fieldwork. Withthe Harvard-Central Brazil Projectof the '60s, directedby David MayburyLewis of HarvardUniversity and Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira of the National Museumin Rio de Janeiro,a series of studiesof Ge-speakingpeoples was carried out underthe inspirationof the then emergent structuralist approach.Two Brazilian anthropologistswere directly involved in the project:Roberto Da Matta with his study of Apinaye social structure,and Julio Cezar Melatti who worked with the Krah6Indians. Outof Melatti'swork(1971) came the idea thatwas to be the basis for further elaborationamong "Ge-ologists" and other ethnologists, that is, the notion of a

460 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

dualkind of transmission of humanattributes: physical substanceby the genitors, social ingredientsby the name-givers. Da Mattaexpandedon this theme among the Apinaye (1976) to characterizetheir whole relationshipsystem and its ideoIn a joint article, Seeger, Da Matta,andViveiros de Castro logical underpinnings. thatwould be (1979) took this idea still further,sketchinga theoryof corporeality the SouthAmericancounterpart to the descent theoryout of Africa or the alliance theoryout of Australia. The interestin the notion of personhoodamongBrazilianIndiansdeveloped from this seminal idea of substanceversus persona, and as a consequence "person" has come of age in the country'sethnographic thinking. A whole book was writtenon the Krah6conceptsof personhood(Careiro da Cunha1978); the topic has crossed the boundaryof indigenous studies and enteredthe realm of, among otherthings, kinshipin nationalsociety (AbreuFilho 1982). I am not, of course, implying that Brazilian anthropologists"invented" personhood as a research topic, a ludicrousidea given the long list of scholars, beginningat least with Marcel Mauss, who have writtenabout it. My comments are strictlylimited to Brazilian or, at most, South Americanethnology and should not be read as a claim to anythingmore grandiosethanjust that. The emphasison corporeality,person, substance, and relatedconcepts has workedas a theoreticalcatalystfor the recurrent statementsby ethnologistsabout the alleged diffuse characterof indigenous social organizationin the continent. The often repeatedclaims of structural fluidity (Kaplan 1977; Riviere 1984) are no more than the expressionof anthropologists who, in spite of their dissatisfaction with the models generatedby ethnographiesfrom other parts of the world, have not found an appropriate alternativeapproachto South Americanmaterials. A social structure is more or less fluid in referenceto what? If the frameworkon which the structure is spun takes on the appearance not of an elaborategenealogy with clearly defined sets of rules but of a networkof ideas about attributesand componentsof humanbeings in life and in death, of relationshipswith the cosmos, with the naturalas well as the supernatural world, then one should not supare less basic andconstitutivethansociojuralarrangepose thatsuchrelationships of thatkind areno more nor less fluidthanany others. They are ments. Structures simply different.9 The repercussionsof this way of looking at Brazilian Indian societies are materials(Albert 1985; greatandbeing felt in the productionof new ethnographic Melatti 1985; Viveiros de Castro 1986. See also Kaplan 1986). Even Montagner if the model drawnby Seeger, Da Matta, and Viveiros de Castrofits Ge societies for it, the openbetterthansome others, since these were the empiricalinspiration for the advanceis an of of structure importantstep ing up new ways perceiving mentof theoreticalissues in Brazilianethnography.Closely relatedto the idea of of naturaland supernatural realms, other aspects of person, and the articulation which add to this have been life general interest:art (Vidal indigenous explored de Castroand Careiro and cannibalism (Viveiros (Ramos 1981), naming 1974), da Cunha 1986). We can perceive one clear directionin which these efforts are pointing,intentionallyor not:to let the Indianmode of being, in all its fascinating

ETHNOLOGYBRAZILIANSTYLE 461

who is open to the unexpected.In fact, diversity,unveil itself to the ethnographer the more unfamiliarand intellectuallyunsettlingan ethnographicdiscovery, the more appreciated and his audience. by the ethnographer Associatedwith the conceptof personhoodandits refinementsis thatof identity. Whatmakes an individualfeel differentfrom everybodyelse and yet, Louis Dumont notwithstanding,be part of a collectivity? This issue, touched upon in variousof the works mentionedabove, has received relativelylittle attention(see Viveiros de Castro 1975) outside the context of interethnicrelations. The constantfactorin consideringidentityhas been the level of contrastand its contextualvariations.The identityof a Bororopersonbelonging to the Macaw clan is quitedifferentfromthe identityof thatsame personin contrastto a regional Brazilian. And yet, it is the same person in both contexts; what changes is the of contrast.We might say thatidentity is to difference as the same is relationship to the other. But these concepts of identity and sameness are yet to be properly exploredin anthropology. Thinking and Rethinking Contact One of the first problemsto be investigatedin Brazilianethnology was the contact situationinvolving interethnicrelations between Indians and whites. In to the historyof NorthAmericanIndianstudieswhereone of the principal contrast to the demise of indigenouspopulationswas to preresponsesof anthropologists serve whatwas takento be theiroriginalculture,the tappingof informants'memories to extractthe "pure culture" from the good old days, did not flourish in Brazil. Hereethnographic attentionwas drawnto the violent processes of destruction of indigenouspopulationsin the face of white expansionism. The methodsandtheoriesto capturethese processesvariedalong the decades and accordingto the researchers'background,but the basic preoccupationwith the mechanismsof white domination, Indian survival strategies, understanding and the transformation of indigenous societies from self-sufficient units to helpless appendagesof the nationalpowers was a constantfeatureof Indian studies. This was done side by side with researchon aspects of traditionalcultures, but not in the spiritof salvage anthropology.We have, for instance, Egon Schaden's works on the heroic mythology of BrazilianIndians(1959), on Guaraniculture (1962), but also on Indianacculturation (1965); Galvao's analyses of kinship in the UpperXingu (1953), but also of acculturative processes in the UpperRio Negro (1959, 1979); Baldus's articles on death, chieftaincy, and other topics (1979[1937]), but also writings on social change and the role of anthropologists in the contactinteraction(1960, 1962). The model of acculturation,broughtdown from the United States to Brazil such as Charles Wagley and EduardoGalvao (a Ph.D. from by ethnographers ColumbiaUniversity)was the maintheoreticalresourcein the '40s and '50s. But, in crossing the equator,it underwentsome changes. In the handsof Galvao and, especially, of Darcy Ribeiro, it became politicized;from an essentially academic exercise in permutations of possible outcomes when two or more culturesmeet,

462 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

acculturationstudies in Brazil, while still holding the focus of culture traits, gained a critical dimension in the attemptto explain why Indian cultures were being depletedby contactwith whites. The intellectualmilieu of Sao Paulo in the '40s and '50s, consideredto have been the most politicallyactive andacademicallysophisticatedcenterin the country (Peirano 1981), produced two of the main figures of Brazilian ethnology whose influencein the studiesof interethnic relationscannotbe overlooked. What follows is a briefdiscussionof the contributions of these scholars-Darcy Ribeiro of Indian-whitecontact. and RobertoCardosode Oliveira-to the understanding Each in his own way, they have imprinteda style of engagementthat transcends their individualtrajectoriesand careers. They are part of a generationof social scientistswho maturedin a markedlynationalistphase of Brazilianhistory, and whose sense of socialjustice andhumanisticconcernswere a sourceof muchanxiety, stress, and frustrationin the following decades, after the militarycoup in 1964. Darcy Ribeiro, one of several ethnologists who were employed by the national IndianProtectionService (SPI) in the '50s, combined a neo-evolutionist approachwith a Marxistinclination. The result was an outstandingseries of essays (1970) analyzingthe several faces of contact in variousregions of the country, with differentdegreesof impacton indigenouspopulations,but all leadingto the deathandmiseryof thousandsuponthousandsof Indians.The sharp,poignant tone of Ribeiro's style has been highly praisedboth in Brazil and in other Latin Americancountries, especially where he lived duringhis political exile. His denunciationsof ethnocide and criminal disruptionof Indian lives are greatly enhancedby his abilityto move audiencesboth in speech and in writing. Led by the overwhelmingevidence of the destructionof Indianpeoples, he predictedtheir within fifty years, after the devastationcaused by infectious disdisappearance eases, loss of land and of ethnic dignity had reducedthem to "generic Indians" with no tribalidentityleft. History has proved Ribeiro's prophecy wrong. 0 In organizingthemselves aroundcommon grievances, BrazilianIndianshave, at the same time, strengthened theirsense of ethnic identity. The "generic Indian" has never materialized in Ribeiro's sense; in fact, the term "Indian" has become a political resource by the Indiansthemselves who convertedit into an active figure in appropriated the context of interethnicantagonism.To be an Indianin Brazil is now to be an agent in the nationalpolitical scenario(Ramos 1988b). important That does not, however, diminish the value of Ribeiro's work. One of the of contactis his reporton a Tupianman, most touchingpieces in the ethnography the and Maira of the in search Uira, promisedland, aftermost of his family deity in his search, having suffered had been killed by repeatedepidemics. Frustrated all sorts of humiliatingexperiences on the way to the sea, he is sent back home by agentsof the SPI. Utterlydemoralized,he commits suicide by throwinghimriver(Ribeiro 1957). The promisedland was no longer self into a piranha-infested in this world as it used to be before the whites invaded(Clastres 1978).

ETHNOLOGYBRAZILIANSTYLE 463

Ribeiro's other studies of the Kadiweu (1948, 1950), and Urubu-Kaapor characterand lack the (1955, and with Berta Ribeiro 1957) have a fragmentary force of "Uira sai ao encontrode Maira" (see also 1974), and his 1970 book, Os Indiose a Civilizaqio. In thatbook, he discusses the manyfrontsof nationalexpansion:agricultural colonization,cattle ranching,rubbertapping, Brazil nut gathering,missionizing. He assigns differentdegrees of virulenceto each of them, the least harmfulbeing the gatheringof raw materials.In the '50s, that might have been the case. In the '70s and '80s, it was no longer so. Following the constructionof roads in Amazonia, came the interestin lumberingand mining. The scale of miningoperations has no resemblanceto Ribeiro's descriptionsof small bands of nut collectors or of scatteredrubbertappers.Mining is now eitherdone by hundredsof thousands of placerminers(garimpeiros), many times the local indigenouspopulations,or by the heavy machineryof large-scale industrialcompanies (CEDI-CONAGE 1988; Ramos 1984). But, in the presentas in the past, the spreadof contagiousdiseases is one of the greatestkillers of indigenouspeoples, especially those with little time of contact. Of an estimated5 million in 1500, the Indianpopulationof Brazil reached its lowest point in the late 1950s, with less than 100,000, recoveringa little in the last decades, to the presentestimateof about200,000, less than0.2% of the country's total population.This process of contaminationand decimation is masterfully presentedby Ribeiro. His model of ethnic transfiguration,innovative as it was, still showed a stronginfluenceof the acculturation approach;it was not sufficiently sharplyfocused to take into accountthe many-faceted,multidimensionalconsequences of contact. His theoretical and methodological achievements are important, but somewhat obfuscated by his extraordinary ability to transmitto the readerthe sense of despair,injustice, helplessness, and the irreversibility of everythingcontact bringsalong to the Indians. His 1970 book is a tributeto that suffering part of humanityby an extremely sensitive ethnographer who had in this sensitivity and criticaloutlook his best anthropological asset. In the '60s, the acculturation model began to crumbleand be replacedby an approachthat became known as "interethnicfriction." Its proponent,Roberto Cardosode Oliveira, a formerstudentof philosophy, workedat the SPI with Ribeiro. His fieldworkamong the Terenaand the TikunaIndianswas motivatedby his stronginterestin the sociology of contact. Both groupshad a long experience with whites, yet differentkinds of experience:the Terenasurrounded by farming and cattle raising whites, the Tikunaby rubbertappinghands and lords. Among the worksthatcame out of those field tripsare, especially, O Processo de Assimilaqdo dos Terena (1960), and O Indio e o Mundodos Brancos (1964) (see also 1968, 1983). Cardosode Oliveira shifted the emphasis from the culturalfocus of acculturationstudies to the field of social relations. Inspiredby the work of Georges Balandier on Black Africa, particularly regardingthe conceptof colonial situation and its postulateof a "syncretic totality," Cardosode Oliveiratook as his main

464 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

object of researchthe interethnicsituation in which Indiansand whites coexist and develop ways of interactionthat are specific to the context of contact. This is seen by him as asymmetrical,generatingdiametrically interrelatedness opposed interests.Moreover, in a much quoted passage (1972:85-86), he claims that the two parties of the contact situation are interdependent,"paradoxicalas it may seem." The problemwith this statementis thatit may give the impressionthat it putsthe Indianson a rathermorefavorablefooting thanthey reallyare. The whole process of attractionand pacificationof isolated Indiangroups is geared to produce a one-way dependence,thatof the Indianson the whites. In fact, the asymmetryof the relationshipis virtuallytotal, for it actuallyinvolves a unilateraldeand diametricalopposition may be true for Africa pendence. Interdependence where whites, althoughthe power holders, are the demographicminority, therefore, dependingon the blacks for labor, etc., but it does not hold for Brazilian Indians. Cardosode Oliveira's model has reached furtherafield than Ribeiro's; although, in a sense, it gives continuityto the latter. Several of Cardoso'sstudents were engaged in projectsfocusing on interethnicfriction in various parts of the country(Laraiaand Da Matta 1967; Melatti 1967; Santos 1970, 1973), and, to contactinvariably this day, anyonewho workson the subjectmatterof interethnic makesuse of his analysis. In contradistinction to Ribeiro, Cardosode Oliveirastandsout for his interest in theoreticaland methodologicalexperiments, and for the constant search for new ways of looking into the problematicof contact. Ribeiro's model of analysis is much more dependenton his personaltalentthanon the workingout of a careful, replicableconceptualframework.It is precisely on this latter attributethat Cardoso's strengthlies. From interethnicfriction he turnedhis attentionto the issue of identity(1976, 1983). Fromidentityhe passed on to ethnicity (1976). A spare fieldworker,he opted to do what he called a "sociology of indigenous Brazil" (1972). His sociology is critical, inspiredby the works of authors as differentas Poulantzas,Mauss, and Levi-Strauss, with a dose of phenomenology. His insistence that the study of ideology in the context of ethnic identity should not be dissociated from social relationscan be at times minimized when the formerweighs slightly more than the latter. Cardosode Oliveira's influence on Braziliananthropologycannot be overemphasized. In his writings as well as in his teachings, he has forged many a careerin anthropology.His projectof interethnicfriction, with its emphasis on the contactsituationinvolving Indiansand whites, led to the need to know more aboutregionalpopulationsin contact with Indiangroups. Two majorprojectsin CentralBrazil and in the Northeast-were put into action to study the expansion of living frontiers. Among the most importantresults of this project were Lygia Sigaud's studiesof ruralNortheast(1979, 1980), and Otavio Velho's book on ruralAmazonia(1972). In turn, both Sigaud and Velho have stimulatedother on this topic. researchers of Brazilianethcontactwas definitelyestablishedas a trademark Interethnic of students of three For the best decades, many indigenoussocieties nology. part

ETHNOLOGYBRAZILIANSTYLE 465

have been stimulatedby Cardosode Oliveira and have taken to the field one or anotherversion of his model of interethnicfriction. In spite of the high qualityof some of these works, most of them are still in the form of unpublishedtheses both at the NationalMuseum and at the Universityof Brasilia, two institutionswhere Cardosode Oliveirataughtfor a total of nearlythirtyyears. But, those heroic and charismatictimes, to use an expressionby Cardosode Oliveirahimself (1988), are over. In the '70s, the trendhas shifted from the orbit of fatherfiguresaroundwhich theoreticaltrendsor political posturescoalesced to of ethnographers a dispersedarrangement occupying positions in a varietyof inuniversities. We now form an acephalousbody state federal and stitutions,mostly in a sortof "orderedanarchy," Nuer style. We have our differences, bickerings, towardeach other's brandof anthropology(be it strucsympathies,or antipathies turalist,Marxist, interactionist,interpretive),but, like the Nuer, we readilyjoin forces against a common enemy whenever crucial issues arise involving the humanrightsof indigenouspeoples. We arenot exactly an exampleof a cosy, happy family, but any of us can count on virtuallyall the others for supportand cooperationwhen the situationso requires. At the present conjuncture,we are, as it were, a mild case of ethnological segmentaryopposition. Partof the interestin interethniccontact has led some of us to make incursions into othertopics closely relatedto it. One of themis Melatti'sworkon Krah6 messianism(1972); anotheris Oliveira Filho's detailed study of Tikunafactionalism in the context of interethnicantagonism(1977, 1989); yet anotheris my own workon intertribal contrastto the Indianrelationships,providinga structural white contactsituation(Ramos 1980). From Academic to Political and Back Again The thrustof these studies in interethnicrelationsis to expose the process of dominationunderwhich the Indiansare forced to live after the so-called "pacification." They are reducedto the poorestof the ruralpoor. They lose theirlands andthe freedomto live accordingto theirown culturalcanons. They suffera double jeopardy:for being economically deprivedand for being ethnicallydifferent. condition. Throughout the historyof ofOfficially, "Indian" is a temporary ficial protectionism,beginning with the creationof the SPI in 1910, and continuing with its successor, the presentday FUNAI (NationalIndianFoundation),all policies regardingIndian affairs have been geared toward integration. The involvement of the governmentin this policy has been increasing to the point of becoming, in the last decade, a concern of national security. Such integration would mean transforming the Indiansinto whites. But, while the official policy need to dissolve the Indiansinto the supposedly undifferentiated the emphasizes mass of Brazilians,the regionalpopulationwho interactdirectlyor indirectlywith the Indiansrefuse to accept them as equals. This double bind makes the Indians a permanenttargetfor prejudice, discrimination,and sheer persecution(Ramos 1985). On the one hand, integrationin those terms means annihilationof ways of life thatare differentfrom what is supposedto be Brazilian.Consideringthat the

466 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

nationalpopulationis itself highly diversified, to demanduniformityof the Indians is doublydiscriminatory: first, it is the denial of legitimacyto theirlife-styles; second, it is the impositionof an accommodationthat is not requiredof anyone else in the country. of On the other hand, keeping the Indiansunder a constant bombardment measures, as is often the case at the local level, amountsto a kind discriminatory of psychological annihilation.No matterhow we look at it, integrationor segregationrepresentdifferentforms of achieving the same thing-the negationof legitimateotherness. And being Indianis being other when it comes to interethnic as "civilizados" withcontact.Outsidethe contrastwith Whites(hereunderstood out referenceto skin color) there are no Indians. The most decisive push to break away from this double bind was to come from the Indiansthemselves. The BrazilianIndianmovementhas covered some groundin thatdirection, incipientas the resultsmay still be, and in spite of retaliatoryactionthathas led to the murderof Indianleaders, massacreof entirefamilies, illegal arrests,andotherformsof repressionon the partof landowners,miners, lumberinterests,etc. Braziliananthropologyhas yet to catch up with the events of the last decade in the political role of the Indiansat thathas witnesseda profoundtransformation the local and nationallevels. None of the well-known theoreticalapproachesacculturation friction, or ethnicity, for instance-seems quite studies, interethnic of the indigenous movements in Brazil tothe intricacies to unravel appropriate are needed in order to cope with the and instruments More sensitive agile day. that contradictions continuously springout in these movements, the bewildering the extremely fast pace at of Indian assemblage personalities, kaleidoscopic which tactics, strategies,and outlooks change, and, last but not least, the loss of role as spokesmanfor the Indians. More thanever the inadthe anthropologist's equacy of the subject-objectchasm, on which mainstreamanthropology has rested, appearsin its glaring awkwardness.The experience is perhapstoo novel to have been assessed with the theoreticaltools so far at our disposal, and too recentto give enough time for the developmentof new ones. One step in thatdirectionis the effort to demystifythe notion that "totemic" societies are ahistoricalor "cold" and establishonce andfor all thathistoryis not only present among Indians, but that it is tailored by them in their own terms, perhapsunrecognizableto us at first sight, but part and parcel of their ongoing traditions(Ramos 1988b). Indeed, interest in ethnohistoryis reappearingin Brazil after a hiatus in de Cunha1987; Farage 1985; Laraia which structuralism (Carneiro predominated new interestin historyis no doubtmoThis Silva 1984-85; 1984; Wright 1981). the process of politicization,thatis, the tivatedby the urge we have to understand insertionof the Indianpopulationinto the political arenaof the whites. It is the feedbackeffect between his commitmentto the anthropological enterpriseand to the destiny of indigenouspeoples that will provide the ethnologist with the elementsto carryon lucid andmeaningfulanalysesof the complex processof Indianwhite contactin which he is inescapablyan actor.

ETHNOLOGYBRAZILIANSTYLE 467

Perhaps novel in the history of ethnology is the experience of anthropologists and Indians working together, participating in the organization of assemblies, in the writing of documents, and in negotiations with the authorities. This active role of ethnologists should not be lost to the theoretical developments yet to come. The anthropologist as citizen has responsibility not only toward the people he studies, but also to the discipline he practices. Notes Acknowledgments. My thanksto Klaas Woortmann,MarizaPeirano, Bruce Albert, Vincent Crapanzano, and WaudKrackefor having read and commentedon this article. 'In some cases, the Indians themselves recruit their ethnographers to assist them; other times it is the BrazilianAnthropologicalAssociation (ABA) that calls on the expertise of its membersto provide reportsfor court cases involving land rights (ABA has signed a Geral da Republica, "Attorney-General,"for standingagreementwith the Procuradoria thatpurpose);congressmen,the press, and otherkey agents in the nationalpolitical scene often approachanthropologists for informationand advice. 2Tothe point are the very revealingstatementsby several NorthAmericananthropologists downplayingthe influence that ethnographicwritings can have in the political decisions thataffect indigenouspeoples (Booth 1989). 3Experiencessuch as those reportedby Crapanzano(1980), and Kondo (1986), for instance, can be extremelyrevealingof the stuff from which ethnographyis constructed. 4Itshould be pointed out that duringhis residence in Brazil, in the '70s, Anthony Seeger was actively engaged in humanrights, having actuallybeen chosen as presidentof one of the many advocacy groups in Brazil at the time, the Pro-IndianCommittee in Rio de Janeiro. His questioncan thus be takenas a challenge and a call for reflection,ratherthanas the curiosityof an innocentobserver.If so, it has had the desiredeffect, for it has triggered off much thinkingon the subject, at least on my part(Ramos 1988a, 1988b). 5Ithas been very gratifyingto me to read the reportsby Fred Myers (1986, 1988) on the engagementof North Americananthropologistsin the problems of contact faced by the AustralianAborigines. On the other hand, the active concern that anthropologistsin the UnitedStateshave had with humanrightsissues has not so farcontributed in any significant way to shape the specific brandof North Americananthropologyas-it is my point-has been the case in Brazil. 6KlaasWoortmann,my colleague at the University of Brasilia, has suggested to me that while in Brazil anthropologistshave worked toward nation-building,in Britain and the United States, they have contributedto empire-building.Certainly, incidents such as the scandalousProjectCamelot involving North Americananthropologistsin cover-up operationsin the '60s tend to corroborate Woortmann'sinsight. This may also have to do with why most Anglo-Americananthropologistsshy away from political involvement. 7At present, a large numberof researchers,Brazilian and foreign, are not allowed into Indianareas, especially in the north Amazon region, where the militaryhas created the Calha Norte Project, a grandioseplan for the defense of the borders,control of development, and monitoringof land occupation(see Albert 1989).

468 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 8Ina provocativelittle book comparingNorthAmericanand Brazilianacademicethos and habits,RobertoKantde Lima(1985) shows how creativityandimaginationareencouraged in the trainingof social scientists in Brazil. 9Thisconcernwas repeatedlystatedduringa Seminaron ComparativeSocial Structureof SouthAmericanIndianSocieties held at the National Museumin Rio in September1985, attendedby several Brazilianethnologists and some foreign colleagues. More recently, Kaplan(1986) has reviewedthe field pointingout preciselythis displacementof focus from social to cosmological relationships. 'In a seminaron Frontier Expansionin Amazoniaheld in Gainesville, Florida,in February 1982, both Ribeiroand Wagley were happyto admittheirerrorin predictingthe total extinctionof BrazilianIndians.In light of the pan-Indian movementin the countryin the '70s and '80s, both ethnologistsrecognizedthe extraordinary resilience of indigenouspeoples andtheircapacityto survive againstall odds (see Ramos 1988b). References Cited AbreuFilho, Ovidio de 1982 Parentescoe IdentidadeSocial. AnuarioAntropol6gico80:95-118. Albert, Bruce de la Maladie, Systeme 1985 Temps du Sang, Temps des Cendres. Repr6sentations Rituel et Espace Politique chez les Yanomamidu Sud-Est (Amazonie Br6silienne). Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,Universit6de ParixX, Nanterre. 1989 TerrasIndigenas, Politica Ambientale Geopolitica do Desenvolvimento Amaz6nico no Brasil: o Caso Yanomami. Urihi, Boletim da Comissao pela Criacao do ParqueYanomami,Sao Paulo:3-37. Baldus, Herbert 1954 BibliografiaCriticada Etnologi Brasileira. Sao Paulo: Comissao do IV Centenarioda Cidadede Sao Paulo. 1960 AntropologiaAplicadae o IndigenaBrasileiro. Anhembi40:257-266. 1962 M6todose Resultadosda Acao Indigenistano Brasil. Revistade AntropologiaX (1-2):27-42. Abhandlu1968 BibliografiaCriticada EtnologiaBrasileira,vol. II. Volkerkundliche GmbH. gen, vol. IV. Hannover:KommissionsverlagMunstermam-Druck EditoraNacional, CoTribodo Brasil Central.Sao Paulo:Companhia 1970 Tapirap6: lecao Brasiliana. EditoraNacional/ 1979[1937] Ensaiosde EtnologiaBrasileira.Sao Paulo:Companhia INL. Booth, William 1989 Warfareover YanomamoIndians. Science 243:1138-1140. Cardosode Oliveira, Roberto 1960 O Processo de Assimilacao dos Terena. Rio de Janeiro:Museu Nacional. 1964 O Indio e o Mundodos Brancos:a Situaqaodos Tukunado Alto Solim6es. Sao Paulo:Difusao Europ6iado Livro. 1968 Urbanizaaioe Tribalismo:a Integracaodos Indios Terena numa Sociedade de Classes. Rio de Janeiro:Zahar. 1972 A Sociologia do Brasil Indigena. Rio de Janeiro:Tempo Brasileiro. Social. Sao Paulo:Pioneira. 1976 Identidade,Etniae Estrutura 1983 Enigmase Solucqes. Rio de Janeiro:Tempo Brasileiro.

ETHNOLOGYBRAZILIANSTYLE 469

1988 A Categoriade (Des)Ordeme a P6s-Modernidade da Antropologia.AnuarioAntropol6gico86:57-73. Careiro da Cunha,Manuela 1978 Os Mortose os Outros:uma Analise do SistemaFunerario e da Nocao de Pessoa entreos Indios Krah6. Sao Paulo: Hucitec. 1987 Os direitosdo Indio. Ensaios e Documentos. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense. CEDI-CONAGE 1988 Empresasde Mineracaoe TerrasIndigenasna Amaz6nia. Sao Paulo:CEDI. Clastres,Helene 1978 TerraSem Mal. O ProfetismoTupi-Guarani. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense. Clifford, James 1981 On Ethnographic Surrealism. Comparative Studies in Society and History 23(4):539-640. Vincent Crapanzano, 1980 Tuhami.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Da Matta,Roberto 1976 Um MundoDividido: a Estrutura Social dos Indios Apinaye. Petr6polis:Vozes. 1979 The Apinay6 Relationship System: Terminology and Ideology. In Dialectical Societies. David Maybury-Lewis,ed. Pp. 83-127. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press. Farage,Nidia 1985 De Guerreiros,Escravos e Suditos: o Trifico de Escravos Caribe-Holandesno Seculo XVIII. AnuarioAntropol6gico84:174-187. Galvao, Eduardo 1953 Cultura e Sistemade Parentescodas Tribosdo Alto Xingu. Rio de Janeiro:Boletim do Museu Nacional 4. 1959 Aculturacao Indigenano Rio Negro. Belem: Boletim do Museu ParaenseEmilio Goeldi 7. 1979 Encontrode Sociedades:Indiose Brancosno Brasil. Rio de Janeiro:Paz e Terra. Graeve, Bernardvon 1976 ProtectiveInterventionand InterethnicRelations:a Study of Dominationon the BrazilianFrontier.UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Universityof Toronto. Tekla Hartmann, 1984 BibliografiaCriticada Etnologia Brasileira,vol. III. VolkerkundlicheAbhandlungen, Band IX. Berlin:Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Kantde Lima, Roberto 1985 A Antropologiada Academia:Quandoos Indios Somos N6s. Petr6polis:Vozes/ UFF. Kaplan,JoannaO. 1977 Orientationfor PaperTopics. Symposium on Social Time and Social Space in LowlandSouth AmericanSocieties. Actes du XLII CongresInternational des Americanistes, vol. II, Pp. 9-10. Paris:C.N.R.S./Fondation Singer-Polignac. 1986 AmazonianAnthropology.Review Article. LatinAmericanStudies 13(1):151164. Kondo, Dorinne 1986 Dissolution and Reconstructionof Self: Implicationsfor AnthropologicalEpistemology. CulturalAnthropology1(1):74-88. Laraia,Roque de Barros 1984-85 Uma Etno-Hist6ria Tupi. Revista de Antropologia27/28:25-32.

470 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY Laraia,Roque, and RobertoDa Matta 1967 Indios e Castanheiros: a EmpresaExtrativistae os Indios do M6dio Tocantins. Sao Paulo:Difusao Europ6iado Livro. Melatti,Julio Cezar 1967 Indios e Criadores:a Situacaodos Krah6na Area Pastorilde Tocantins. Monografiasdo Institutode Ciencias Sociais 3. Rio de Janeiro:UFRJ. 1971 Nominadorese Genitores:um Aspecto do Dualismo Krah6. Munich:Verhank12 lugen des XXXVIII Interationalen Ameriknistenkongresses, Stuttgart-Munchen bis 18, August 1968, vol. 3, Pp. 347-353. 1972 O MessianismoKrah6. Sao Paulo:Herder/EDUSP. 1977 Estrutura Social Marubo:um SistemaAustralianona Amaz6nia. AnuarioAntropol6gico 76:83-120. 1978 Ritos de uma TriboTimbira.Sao Paulo:Atica. 1979 The RelationshipSystem of the Krah6.In DialecticalSocieties. David MayburyHarvardUniversityPress. Lewis, ed. Pp. 46-79. Cambridge: 1982 A Etnologia das Populao6es Indigenas no Brasil, nas Duas Ultimas D6cadas. AnuarioAntropol6gico80:253-275. 1984 A Antropologiano Brasil: um Roteiro. Boletim Informativoe Bibliograficode Ciencias Sociais (BIB) 17:3-52. Melatti, Delvair Montagner 1985 O Mundodos Espiritos:EstudoEtnograficodos Ritos de CuraMaribo. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Universidadede Brasilia. Myers, Fred 1986 The Politics of Representation: AnthropologicalDiscourse and AustralianAboAmerican 13(1):138-153. Ethnologist rigines. Practice:Romance, Reality, and Politics in the Outback. 1988 LocatingEthnographic AmericanEthnologist 15(4):609-624. Nimuendaj6,Curt 1942 The Sherente. Los Angeles: The FrederickWebb Hodge AnniversaryPublication Fund, IV, SouthwestMuseum. 1946 The EasternTimbira. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPublicationsin American Archaeologyand Ethnology, vol. 41. 1952 The Tukuna. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPublicationsin American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 45. OliveiraFilho, Joao Pacheco 1977 As Facc6es e a OrdemPolitica em uma ReservaTukuina. Unpublishedmaster's thesis, Universidadede Brasilia. 1989 Os Ticunae o Regime Tutelar.Rio de Janeiro:MarcoZero. Peirano,Mariza 1981 The Anthropologyof Anthropology. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Harvard University. 1985 O Antrop6logocomo Cidadao. Dados 28(1):27-43. Ramos, Alcida R. 1974 How the SanumaAcquireTheir Names. Ethnology 13:171-185. no Brasil. Sao Paulo:Hucitec/INLe Simbiose. Relac6es Intertribais 1980 Hierarquia MEC. 1984 Frontier Expansionand IndianPeoples in the BrazilianAmazon. In FrontierExpansion in Amazonia. MarianneSchmink and Charles H. Wood, eds. Pp. 83-104. Gainesville:Universityof FloridaPress.

ETHNOLOGYBRAZILIANSTYLE 471

1985 CategoriasEtnicasdo PensamentoSanuma:ContrastesIntrae Inter6tnicos.Anuario Antropol6gico84:95-108. 1988a Rhetoricand Practiceof Indigenism in Brazil. Paperpresentedat the Conference on Nation-Stateand Indianin LatinAmerica, LatinAmericanCenter,University of Texas at Austin. 1988b IndianVoices: ContactExperiencedand Expressed.In RethinkingHistoryand Myth. JonathanHill, ed. Pp. 214-234. Urbana:Universityof Illinois Press. Ribeiro, Darcy 1948 SistemaFamilial Kadiu6u.Revista do Museu Paulista, n.s. 2:175-192. 1950 Religiao e Mitologia Kadiw6u. Publicacao 106. Rio de Janeiro:Conselho Nacional de Protecaoaos Indios. 1955 Os Indios Urubus. Ciclo Anual das Atividadesde Subsist6nciade uma Tribo da de AmericanFlorestaTropical. Sao Paulo:Anais do XXXI CongressoInternacional istas, vol. I, pp. 127-157. 1957 Uira Vai ao Encontrode Maira:as Experienciasde um Indio Urubuque Saiu a Procurade Deus. Anhembi24(76):21-35. 1970 Os Indios e a Civilizacao. Rio de Janeiro:Civilizacao Brasileira. 1974 UiraSai a Procurade Deus: Ensaios de Etnologiae Indigenismo.Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Ribeiro, Darcy, and BertaRibeiro 1957 Arte Plumariados Indios Kaapor.Rio de Janeiro:Civilizacao Brasileira. Riviere, Peter 1984 Individualand Society in Guiana. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Santos, Silvio Coelho dos 1970 A Integracao do Indio na SociedadeRegional:a Funcqodos Postos Indigenasem SantaCatarina.Florian6polis:UFSC. 1973 Indios e Brancosno Sul do Brasil. A DramaticaExperienciados Xokleng. Florian6polis:Edeme. Schaden,Egon 1959[1945] A Mitologia Her6icade TribosIndigenasdo Brasil:Ensaio Etno-Sociol6gico. Rio de Janeiro:Minist6rioda Educacaoe Cultura. 1962 Aspectos Fundamentais da CulturaGuarani.2d edition. Sao Paulo:Difusao Europ6iado Livro. 1965 AculturacaoIndigena:Ensaio sobre Fatorese Tendenciasda MudancaCultural de Tribos Indias em Contato com o Mundo dos Brancos. Revista de Antropologia XIII. Seeger, Anthony 1981 Ha Algo de Antropologiana Atuacao de Antrop6logosJunto as Comunidades Indigenasdo Brasil? Paperpresentedat the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Associacao Nacional de P6s-Graduaqao e Pesquisaem Ciencias Sociais, Nova Friburgo,Rio de Janeiro. Seeger, Anthony, RobertoDa Matta, and E. B. Viveiros de Castro 1979 A Construqao da Pessoa nas Sociedades Indigenas Brasileiras. Rio de Janeiro: Boletim do Museu Nacional, n.s. Antropologia:2-19. Sigaud, Lygia 1979 A Naciaodos Homens. Uma Analise Regional de Ideologia. AnuarioAntropol6gico 78:13-114. 1980 Os Clandestinose os Direitos. Rio de Janeiro:LivrariaDuas Cidades.

472 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY Silva, Aracy Lopes da 1984 A ExpressaoMitica da Vivencia: Tempo e Espaqona Construcaoda Identidade Xavante. AnuarioAntropol6gico82:200-214. Velho, Otavio G. 1972 Frentesde Expansaoe Estrutura Agraria.Rio de Janeiro:Zahar. 1982 ThroughAlthusserian Spectacles:Recent Social Anthropologyin Brazil. Ethnos 47 (I-II):133-149. Vidal, Lux 1981 Contribution to the Conceptof Personand Self in LowlandSouth AmericanSocieties: Body Painting among the Kayap6-Xikrin.In Contribuicqesa Antropologia em Homenagemao ProfessorEgon Schaden. Pp. 291-303. Sao Paulo:Colecao Museu Paulista,S6rie Ensaios 4. Viertler,RenateB. 1976 As Aldeias Bororo:Alguns Aspectos de sua OrganizacaoSocial. Sao Paulo:Museu Paulista,S6rie Etnologia. Viveirosde Castro,EduardoB. 1975 Individuoe Sociedadeno Alto Xingu: os Yawalapiti.Unpublishedmaster'sthesis, Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. 1986 Arawete. Os Deuses Canibais. Rio de Janeiro:Zahar. Viveiros de Castro,E., and ManuelaCameiroda Cunha os Tupinamba.AnuarioAntropol6gico85:57-78. 1986 Vingancae Temporalidade: and Eduardo Galvao Charles, Wagley, Uma Culturaem Transiqao.Rio de Janeiro:Ministerioda 1961 Os IndiosTenetehara: Educacaoe Cultura. Wright,Robin 1981 History and Religion of the Baniwa Peoples of the Upper Rio Negro Valley. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,StanfordUniversity.