The category and its reciprocal terms designate a generalized mode of relating that characterizes interactions between humans, between non-humans, between humans and non-humans and between persons and things. It is a key category for understanding Indigenous sociologies and cosmologies, which, notwithstanding its importance, has received relatively little attention. Through the analysis of ethnographical evidence, this text seeks to explore the consequences of imagining the Amerindian universe as a world of owners and the owner as a model for the magnified person, in order to discuss notions of ownership, domain and power in lowland South America. Nesse sentido, mais do que um representante i.
|Published (Last):||5 May 2006|
|PDF File Size:||17.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It has already been remarked that archaic societies are almost always classed negatively, under the heading of lack: societies without a State, societies without writing, societies without history.
The classing of these societies on the economic plane appears to be of the same order: societies with a subsistence economy. If one means by this that primitive societies are unacquainted with a market economy to which surplus products flow, strictly speaking one says nothing.
One is content to observe an additional lack and continues to use our world as the reference point: those societies without a State, without writing, without history are also without a market. But — common sense may object — what good is a market when no surplus exists? Now, the notion of a subsistence economy conceals within it the implicit assumption that if primitive societies do not produce a surplus, this is because they are incapable of doing so, entirely absorbed as they are in producing the minimum necessary for survival, for subsistence.
The time-tested and ever serviceable image of the destitution of the Savages. And, to explain that inability of primitive societies to tear themselves away from the stagnation of living hand to mouth, from perpetual alienation in the search for food, it is said they are technically under-equipped, technologically inferior. What is the reality? If one understands by technics the set of procedures men acquire not to ensure the absolute mastery of nature that obtains only for our world and its insane Cartesian project, whose ecological consequences re just beginning to be measured , but to ensure a mastery of the natural environment suited and relative to their needs , then there is no longer any reason whatever to impute a technical inferiority to primitive societies: they demonstrate the ability to satisfy their needs which is at least equal to that of which industrial and technological society is so proud.
What this means is that every human group manages, perforce, to exert the minimum of domination over the environment it inhabits. Up to the present we know of no society that has occupied a natural space impossible to master, except for reasons of force or violence: either it disappears, or it changes territories.
I already met people who defended such a position or else you can do as my friends advise me, and just abandon them to their prejudices. Everyone conforms to this gendered norm - one gender cannot even touch the attribute of the other, unless s he would be doomed. Nevertheless, they were poles apart.
The first of them, Chachubutawachugi , was a widower who happened to be quite poor at hunting. Everyone laughed at him. The second was named Krembegi , and was a gay who performed the female gender. He had a basket and held it like a woman. Also, he had chosen to let his hair longer, and even adopted a style more elaborate than women, for he was the only one who handcrafted necklaces with animal teeth dandy.
He had a few sexual intercourses with other men of the village Clastres here explains it was by bawdiness rather than by homosexuality. And…everyone accepted him the way he was: transgendered. The law they come to know in pain is the law of primitive society, which says to everyone: You are worth no more than anyone else; you are worth no less than anyone else.
Primitive law, cruelly taught, is a prohibition of inequality that each person will remember. View On WordPress. O que ocorre na realidade? Log in Sign up. Pierre Clastres: Society Against the State. In reality, the meager categories of ethnological thought hardly appear capable of measuring the depth and density, or even the difference, of indigenous thought.
It is said that the history of peoples who have a history is the history of class struggle. It might be said, with at least as much truthfulness, that the history of peoples without history is the history of their struggle against the State. Not only does he doubt that the State is the product of an ascribable economic development, but he asks if it is not a potential concern of primitive societies to ward of f or avert that monster they supposedly do not understand.
Warding off the formation of a State apparatus, making such a formation impossible, would be the objective of a certain number of primitive social mechanisms, even if they are not consciously understood as such. To be sure, primitive societies have chiefs. But the State is not defined by the existence of chiefs; it is defined by the perpetuation or conservation of organs of power.
The concern of the State is to conserve. Special institutions are thus necessary to enable a chief to become a man of State, but diffuse, collective mechanisms are just as necessary to prevent a chief from becoming one. Mechanisms for warding off, preventive mechanisms, are a part of chieftainship and keep an apparatus distinct from the social body from crystallizing.
The chief is more like a leader or a star than a man of power and is always in danger of being disavowed, abandoned by his people. But Clastres goes further, identifying war in primitive societies as the surest mechanism directed against the formation of the State: war maintains the dispersal and segmentarity of groups, and the warrior himself is caught in a process of accumulating exploits leading him to solitude and a prestigious but powerless death.
Clastres can thus invoke natural Law while reversing its principal proposition: just as Hobbes saw clearly that the State was against war, so war is against the State, and makes it impossible. It should not be concluded that war is a state of nature, but rather that it is the mode of a social state that wards off and prevents the State. Primitive war does not produce the State any more than it derives from it.
Deleuze Guattari Clastres anthropology. If you're a bit concerned about gender studies, you may find Krembegi's case interesting. External image. O arco e o cesto - Pierre Clastres. Society Against the State zinelibrary. Want to see more posts tagged clastres?