CHECK FILE(MIDTERM) FOR INSTRUCTIONS links to movie: Waste Land : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= Albatross : https://vimeo.com/264508490 daughter of the lake (part1): https://drive.google.com/file/d

1. Uncommoning Nature Stories from the Anthropo- Not- Seen Marisol de la CadenaA Preamble On June 5, 2\f\f9, at dawn, near the northern Amazonian town of Bagua, a violent confrontation took place between police forces and a large group of Peruvian citizens self- ident i\bed as belonging to the Awajun Wampis in - digenous group. This event, which resulted in more than thirty deaths, has marked the po lit i ca l imaginary, if with di ff er ent em phases depending on one’s position to the left or the right on the national po lit i ca l spectrum. In general, the narrative that circulates in the media goes more or less as fol- lows: As part of a general strike, which started on April 9 (that same year) and was or ga nized b y several Amazonian indigenous groups, the Awajun Wampis had taken control of a highway in northern Peru at a place called “La Curva del Diablo”— th e Dev il ’s Curve. They wer e protesting several de - crees with which the government had conceded their territory to corporate oil exploration without abiding by the ilo (International La bor Organ - ization) agreement 169. This international legislation, to which the Peruvian government officially adheres, requires signatory states to consult the opin - ion of the inhabitants of territories that corporations request for exploration and exploitation. Be cause they had not been consulted, the concession was illegal, the protestors said. The police’s objective was to break up the high - way blockade; through unknown circumstances (which are under in vestiga - tion), the confrontation got out of control. According to the official count, the clash— known as el Baguazo (in En glish, “the huge event in Bagua”)— Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

36 Marisol de la Cadena resulted in more than thirty deaths among the Awajun Wampis and police.

Two weeks later, on June 19— under en ormous pressure from heterogeneous groups and against the wi ll of then president Alan García— th e National Congress canceled the decrees that allowed the concession of indigenous territories to oil companies and transgressed the ilo Convention 169. At the same time, the local state ordered the arrest of some indigenous leaders; they faced charges of murder and sedition. Following a long trial, they wer e \b nally acquitted in September 2\f16. 1 Among those arrested was Santiago Manuin Valera, the most public in - dividual among the Awanjun Wampis. The following quote is part of his testimony during the trial on April 1\f, 2\f14, \bve years aft er the event—at the time he faced life in prison: “The government is taking away our territory, the territory of the Awajun Wampis pe ople , so that we become dependent on its [form of ] development. The government never asked: do you want to de- velop? They did not consult us. We responded, ‘Cancel the legislative decrees that affect our existence as a pe ople. ’ Instead of listening to our complaint, the government wanted to punish us— ot her pe oples surrendered, we did not. The government ordered our forced eviction” (emphasis added). 2 Tw o weeks after the trial, on April 26, he wrote: We will never accept that the Government does what it wants with . . . the territory that our ancestors assigned us before the Peruvian state was formed. Peru and the wh ole world should know that this place of thirty thousand [square] kilo met ers is ours and belongs to us; we wi ll always defend it and wi ll give our lives for it. [The Awajun Wampis] were defending our right, our identity, our culture, a development of our own, our forest, our rivers, our cosmos, and our territory . 3 (emphasis added) Manuin ended the statement by declaring his innocence. Why would it be a crime to defend the ancestral territory of the Awajun Wampis against a usurping state? The criminal trial against Manuin and ot hers may be in - terpreted as a conflict over sovereignty, and depending on where we stand, we can support the Awajun Wampis people’s right to defend their territory or side with the state’s prerogative to decide about the national territory and the use of natu ral resources. Taken to the court, this would already be a challenging legal p rob lem. Ho wever, I intend to argue that at the in - ception of the conflict is a disagreement that would not \bnd resolution within the rule of law— ev en in its fairest version— fo r it exceeds its exist - ing domain. Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

Uncommoning Nature 37 Examining the confrontation, and writing in its aftermath, the anthro- pologist Shane Greene suggests “that th ere [was] more at stake than simply a defense of territory, a protest against cap i ta l is t expansion, or a concern over the fate of the environment. What [was] also at stake is a distinct way of life ” (2\f\f9, 58; emphasis added). Explaining the confrontation in the midst of the strike, Leni— a yo ung Awajun Wampis leader with his face painted in red and black, a bandana around his head— sp oke words that may illustrate Greene’s intimation: We speak of our br others who quench our thirst, who bathe us, th ose who protect our needs— this [ brother] is what we call the river. We do not use the river for our sewage; a br other cannot stab another br other.

We do not stab our br others. If the transnational corporations would care about our soil like we have cared for it for millennia, we would gladly give them room so that they could work her e— bu t all they care about is their economic bene\bt, to \bll their coffers with wealth. We do not understand why the government wants to raze our lives with those decrees. 4 Taking Greene’s cue and listening to Leni’s words, I want to suggest that in the above statements, “territory” as referred to by Manuín may make ref - erence both to a piece of land under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian state and to an entity that emerges through the Awajun Wampis’ practices of life that may, for example, make pe ople the relatives of rivers, as in Leni’s state - ment. And kinship between pe ople and wat er and forest may transform ter - ritory into Awajun Wampis, as in a recent public declaration by their leaders in which they said, “Territory is the Awanjun Wampis.” 5 This relation— wh ere pe ople and territory are together — exceeds the pos - sibilities of modern hum ans and modern nature as well as modern relations between them, without precluding any of them. Nevertheless, it complicates the conflict: rather than an abuse of power that can be unmade (with dif - \bculty, of course), the conflict becomes a misunderstanding that is impos - sible to solve without engaging in the terms that make territory other to the state’s ability to understand and therefore other to its recognition. Erupting publicly, the conflict poses a challenge intolerable to the state, and its re - sponse might be the eradication of its roots: the denial of the existence of the terms of the Awajun Wampis. Thus viewed, the conflict is ontological. I draw on Jacques Rancière and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro to conceptualize it as a confrontation housing a historical disagreement (Rancière’s term) about an equivocation (Viveiros de Castro’s term) over what territory is and what Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

38 Marisol de la Cadena kind of relations make it . Together these two concepts, disagreement and equivocation, may do work that each of them individually may not do; their joint analytic work may enable reflection about the complexity of the dispute expressed in Manuín’s statements. It may also expose a conflict located both within and beyond the domain of the rule of law.

Viveiros de Castro is a Brazilian anthropologist; “equivocation” is his concept to explain the mode of communication among Amerindian inhab - itants ( humans and not) in the Brazilian Amazon. Equivocation, he says, houses “the referential alterity between homonymic concepts” (Viveiros de Castro 2\f\f4, 5) with which the entities that populate Amerindian worlds communicate with—or translate to— eac h other. Crucial to the concept is, \brst, that these entities— whic h we would regard as hum ans or animals— consider themselves hum an and see their “ ot hers” as animals; and, second, that what is results from the entities’ point of view, which in turn results from their bodies. The almost canonical example to illustrate equivocation is that of the differences between jaguar and hum an: what the former sees as beer, the latter sees as blood. The reason for the differences between their points of view resides in their di ff er ent b odies; the difference is not con - ceptual, for both entities share the notions beer and blood. Therefore, com - munication, and even the preservation of one’s life, consists in “controlling” the equivocation (Viveiros de Castro 2\f\f4, 5) or understanding that while the concept (and therefore the understanding of the thing it refers to) may be shared, the thing itself may emerge as di ff er ent if t he concept is uttered by someone who is an other to the self in the interlocution. When equivocation is the mode of communication, concepts and thin gs are only partially con - nected; the same word may refer to two di ff er ent thin gs depending on the world it is uttered from. In the case that concerns me her e, territory may be both the piece of land that rests separate from the hum ans and the state that may have the right to it, and the entity that is with the Awajun Wampis— what territory is would depend on the world that is pronouncing the term, the relations that it emerges from.

Disagreement may have the appearance of an equivocation. Rancière, a phi los o pher of politics and aesthetics, conceptualizes disagreement as “the conflict between one who says white and another who also says white but does not understand the same thin g by it.” Yet while equivocation assumes that all participants in the interlocution are speakers (and thus can name things that are conceptually the same and “objectively” di ff er ent), t he mis - understanding that provokes disagreement (à la Rancière) results from “a contention over what speaking means”; it is “a dispute over the object of Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

Uncommoning Nature 39 the discussion, and over the capacity of th ose who are making an object of it” (Rancière 1999, x, xi, xii). Moreover, as a po liti cal interruption to alter the conventional order and establish equality, disagreement is a dispute that confronts those who have (are granted) speech with th ose who do not have (are denied) speech—it is a dispute about the conventions that distribute capacities to de\bne what is and how that is. Strug gles f or civil rights in the Amer i cas would be an example of how disagreement established a new order of the perceptible. Thus, the difference between the two fellow con - cepts: equivocation is a misunderstanding in a relation among equals that are (i.e., ontologically) mutually other. The misunderstanding is an onto - logical relation; while the equivocation can be discerned (or controlled, to use Viveiros de Castro’s term), it is also an inevitable condition that cannot be changed. In contrast, disagreement pits socially unequal individuals in a dispute to be the same (or socially equivalent) and from such a position to name and de\bne what the same should be; her e the misunderstanding is po liti cal and reflects an epistemic dispute seeking to change how the estab - lished order is perceived. To put it differently, and perhaps more clearly in terms of the argument of this article, the misunderstanding in equivocation emerges when bodies that belong to di ff er ent worlds use the same word to name entities that are not the same because they too, like the bodies that name them, belong to di ff er ent w orlds; disagreement results from misun - derstandings about the conditions for naming the same entities in a world that should be shared. Impossible Politics, Si lent War, and the “Anthropos- No t- Se en” Thinking through Rancière’s notion of disagreement, the “big event in Bagua” can be rendered as the eruption of politics: a historical event in which a subject emerges that disrupts the distribution of speech and the order it creates. In disagreement, this subject erupts in the established order (where he or she has no speech) to propose another distribution of the voices, ears, hands, and, ultimately, bodies that name what the French phi los o ph er calls the perceptible. In the speci\bc case of el Baguazo, the disagreement that the Awajun Wampis manifested would have interrupted the distribution of the speech that assigns the state sovereignty to decide about territory. Against it, the Awajun Wampis would have claimed their own sovereign voice. Under - stood as an extension of the country over which hum ans have the power of decision, the entity “territory” would have remained the same, and what and how it is would not be in dispute.Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

4\f Marisol de la Cadena Conceptualized instead as a disagreement that houses an equivocation , the conflict can also be interpreted as a dispute around an entity— ter ritory— that is not the same and cannot be the di ff er ent thin gs that it may emerge as in interlocutions between Awajun Wampis and the state. Thinking through territory as equivocation, Manuín’s statements— an d the trial from which they emerge— would also reflect a disagreement, the nature of which is on - tological. Thus, the equivocation would also be a po lit i ca l dispute aggravated by the condition of its impossibility, for neither the state nor the law is able— let alone equipped—to recognize the equivocation or the po lit i ca l dispute around it. I am calling this condition the anthropo- no t- se en. I conceptu - alize it as the world- ma king pro cess t hrough which heterogeneous worlds that do not make themselves through practices that ontologically separate humans (or culture) from nonhumans (or nature)— nor necessarily conceive as such the di ff er ent en tities in their assemblages — both are obliged into that distinction (and thus willfully destroyed) and exceed it. The anthropo- no t- seen would thus be both the will that requires the distinction (and destroys what ever disobeys the obligation) and the excesses to that wi ll: the collec - tives that, like the Awajun Wampis, are composed of entities that are not only human or nonhuman be cause they are also with what (according to the obligation) they should not be: hum ans with nonhumans, and the other way around. The Anthropocene makes scholarly reference to the era when hum ans have become a geological force capable of planetary destruction. The “anthropo- not- seen” makes obvious reference to the term, and the suffix is equally obviously intended as a pun on - cene. However, the not- se en may be decep - tive, for in using it, my intention is not to evoke the invisible of a vis i ble realm under which it exists bearing the duress of power. In fact, the not- seen does not mainly refer to a regime of visibility. Rather, it aims to make reference to what is within a historically formulated hegemonic condition of impossibility, and hence, included in the anthropo- no t- se en are antagonistic partners and their antagonistic relationship. On one hand, the anthropo- not- seen comprises the practices and prac ti tio n ers of the wi ll that granted itself the power to eradicate all that disobeyed mandates to be “ hum an” as modernity (in its early and late versions) sanctioned. On the other hand, it includes the disobedient prac ti tio n ers o f collectives composed of entities recalcitrant to classi\bcation (and individuation) as either human or nonhu - man. Complexly, the anthropo- no t- se en includes both the anthropos that embodies the self- gra nted wi ll to make the world as he or she knows it, and the disobedient anthropos, the one that is inherently-with- ot hers and thus not Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

Uncommoning Nature 41 only human. Both inhabit the not- se en, yet they do so in antagonism: in the case of the \brst anthropos, what is not- se en (as such) is its constitutive wi ll to destruction, which in turn cancels the possibility of disobedient beings and therefore makes for their not- se en condition. As an or ga nized p ro cess of destruction— so metimes through benevolently offered assimilation— th e anthropo- not- se en included, and continues to include, a silen t war waged against entities and world- ma king practices that ignore the separation of entities into nature and culture. 6 Dating from the early sixteenth cent ury in what became the Amer i ca s, the war was initially loud and clear; \bghting for their God, Christian clerics walked the Andes from Colombia to Argentina and Chile, “extirpating idol - atries,” a po lit i ca l practice that the friars conceived against “devil- ind uced worship.” Extirpation required dividing the participating entities into God- made nature (mountains, rivers, forests) and naturales , or incipient hum ans with a soul still to be saved. The invention of modern politics secularized the antagonism: the war against the recalcitrance to distinguish nature from humanity was silenced; yet it continued in the name of pro gr ess and against backwardness, the evil that replaced the devil. Making it not- se en, war prac - tices included forms of making live. Inferior hum ans became the object of benevolent and inevitable inclusion, enemies that did not even count as enemies: the war was waged through silen t means. This last phrase paraphrases Michel Foucault’s inversion of Carl von Clausewitz’s classic aphorism (“War is a continuation of politics through other means”): “Politics is the continu - ation of war by other means” (2\f\f3, 15). Unpacking the phrase, he explains, \brst, that the relations of force through which modern power works wer e established in and through war at a given historical moment; and, second, that while politics “paci\bes” “it certainly does not do so in order to . . . ne u - tralize the disequilibrium revealed by the last ba ttle of the war”; but, third, that instead “the role of po lit i ca l power is perpetually to use a sort of silen t war to reinscribe that relationship of force, and to inscribe it in institutions, economic inequalities, language, and even the bodies of individuals” (15–16).

I tweak Foucault a bit to indicate, \brst, that the signature of the war that es- tablished modern power was its colonial wi ll to destroy—or assimilate, which amounts to destruction yet has hegemonic potential— th at which was not in its image and likeness; second, that the “last ba ttle” is always ongoing; and, \b nally, that rather than being waged through politics, modern war may be a mechanism against the demand for politics posed by those collectives against whom the war is waged. When th ese collectives pose such a demand— wh en the disagreement around equivocations becomes public, and collectives Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

42 Marisol de la Cadena press for recognition of that which the state cannot recognize— th e silen t war may translate into overt ba ttle. The state would wage it in the name of the common good; disobedient collectives respond to defend their survival. Extractivism or the End of the Si lent War (and of the Not- Se en) Extractivism is a concept that circulates quite profusely in Latin Amer - i ca and that, quite literally, makes the Anthropocene materially pres ent as a human- ge ological force, while at the same time foregrounding its ar - ticulation through \bnancial capital and in connection with infrastructural growth. This term is currently used in environmental circles in the region; critical contributors trace the start of extractivist practices back to Span - ish colonial mining (see Gudynas 2\f15; Bebbington 2\f15; Svampa 2\f15).

The extraction of silver from the Cerro Rico de Potosí and Huancavelica (currently in Bolivia and Peru, respectively) is an infamous example of the death and destruction caused by the extraction of minerals for circulation in Iberian metropolitan markets. Guano, rubber, cotton, and sugar plantations and perforation for oil (mostly in coastal areas with access to small ports) followed in the late nineteenth cent ury. Then, enabled by the construction of railways, the growth of ports in size and numbers, and the creation of a merchant naval industry, a gr eat number of mines wer e opened throughout the twentieth cent ury, attracting US and British capital. Throughout, th ese activities contributed to the general national income, to ecological “transfor - mation,” and to the death of populations ( ne edless to say, th ese wer e mostly indigenous and slaves of African origin). Many features make extractivism a di ff er ent v enture compared to earlier (also extractive) practices. Some obvious ones are the corporate character of the practice; the worldwide ubiquity of the model and its interconnected- ness; the unpre ce dent ed rate of expansion of markets for minerals, oil, and energy; and the magnitude of new technologies that allow for quick and pro\btable extraction. Former “tunnel mining”— th e perforation of mountains following the vein of minerals— ha s been replaced by open pits that destroy mountains, creating crater- lik e formations that extend over hundreds of hectares and reach depths of more than a thousand meters. 7 Multiple- well platforms have substantially increased the number of barrels and the speed of production, and relatively new technologies like inland and offshore fracking and the production of oil from tar sands are responsible for the unpre ce dent ed ter - ritorial expansion of oil extraction. The magnitude of the so- ca lled environ -Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

Uncommoning Nature 43 mental impacts is also unpre ce dent ed. An example: between 2\f\f6 and 2\f11, Bolivia produced 5,6\f\f tons of silver, which required the removal of more than 44 million tons of rocks (removing the rocks from where they wer e and then dumping them elsewhere is destructive). And while the tremendous amounts of wat er used in mining are not exactly destroyed, it becomes so full of contaminants that it is rendered useless for consumption by any living being. In the case of oil: fracking uses extraordinary amounts of wat er and releases large volumes of toxic and radioactive waste and dangerous air pol - lutants, and it thus affects bodies of all sorts in vast areas. 8 Soybean and oil palm plantations (among ot hers) join in the production of what Uruguayan biologist and politician Eduardo Gudynas has labeled “ecological amputa - tions” (2\f15, 25). The construction of infrastructure (necessary to market the resources) sponsored by central \bnancial institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and new regional \bnancial entities such as the Latin American Development Bank, enables the extraction to reach the remotest territories. All this propels what appears to be an unpre ce dent edly unstoppable and mighty removal of resources in th ese territories as they are also transformed into spaces for \bnancial investment. As im mense an ecological concern as it is, extractivism has become a central component of the economic strategies of all governments in the re - gion, left and right, without exception. Perhaps the only difference is that while the \brst, guided by a nationalist agenda, declare that they prefer to execute the extraction themselves, the latter have decidedly opened their ter - ritories to transnational corporations. Appropriation through Pollution is the subtitle Michel Serres (2\f11) gives to the lit tle book in which he discusses the planetary ecological crisis we live with—to pollute is to possess; it is to exclude others from access to the resources that the polluter appropriates. And, of course, appropriation through pollution also kills th ose hum ans whom the destructive anthropos does not care to see— an d therefore neither pollution nor deaths ma tter, for not infrequently (if implicitly), ecological am - putations are deemed necessary “geographies of sacri\bce,” to adopt Valerie Kuletz’s (1998) phrase and adapt it to the ethos of extractivism. Accordingly, forms of life that continue to exist in the spaces from which resources can be extracted are disposable be cause th ose forms of life oug ht to have dis - appeared long ago. Moved by a well- fun ded race for pro gr ess and promoted by economic growth, the reach of the current destruction of indigenous worlds is historically unparalleled, and news about it is not exactly scarce; it takes no effort to learn about appalling incidents at any given time. Consider this commentary published on March 23, 2\f16, as I was writing this piece: Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

44 Marisol de la Cadena it narrates the slow death of an indigenous group recognized in Colombia as the Wayúu at the hands of an infamous coal mine. Every thing has been taken away from them. They have stolen their land, their wat er, even their names. . . . An d the spoliation continues.

The draught that burns them with thirst is neither nature’s whim, nor a consequence of global warming: it is that the gr eat coal com pa ny from El Cerrejón, built the dam El Cercado, which the state inaugu - rated with great publicity, and it sucked the wat er for the needs of the im mense mine. The mine grows, and as it does, it evicts the Wayúus into the desert in La Guajira. [Before the dam] El Cerrejón had already diverted for its own ends the course of several streams that fed the Río Ranchería, and now it insists on building a new riverbed, thus taking the whole river away in order to reach the im men se coal deposits that lie under the wat er. 9 Denunciations like the above \bnd a public beyond the indigenous pe oples whose life is at stake, and among th ose more generally concerned with the distribution of ecological conflicts and hum an rights. Digging a mountain to open a mine, drilling into the subsoil to \bnd oil, damming all pos si ble r ivers, and razing trees to build transoceanic roads and railroads are tools for the transformation of territories into grounds for investment— bu t extractiv - ism’s hegemony is hard to achieve. Extractivism has met a relentless opposi - tion that articulates, if in complex and irregular ways, unexpected alliances across the heterogeneous demands of a vast array of collectives. Centrally, in all its diverse complexity, the alliance de\bes the mono po ly of the state and corporations to make, inhabit, and de\bne nature— an d, at times, the chal - lenge it poses touches states’ nerves, producing the feeling that sovereignty over the territories they rule is challenged and that their hopes for economic growth (founded on extractivism) are jeopardized. So far, the reaction of national states (from the left and the right) has been to waver between ac - cepting and rejecting their opponents’ demands for negotiation. When re - jection happens, what I have been calling the “ silen t war” moves onto an open battle\beld—in the name of pro gr ess, as always. The confrontation in 2\f\f9 in La Curva del Diablo is an emblematic event of the end of the silen t war: those who oppose the transformation of universal nature into resources oppose the possibility of the common good as the mission of the nation- state and are thus the state’s enemies, deserving jail at the very least. The alliance against extractivism is complex. Po lit i ca lly relevant, it has a capacity to attract public attention opposing the participation of the state in Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

Uncommoning Nature 45 human rights violations and corporate ecological amputations; while per - formed through modern notions (environment, rights, biodiversity), the reality- making practices of the alliance continue the anthropo- no t- se en. Yet the complexity does not end her e— an d following it up, we may \bnd that the alliance deserves care. Defending themselves, the spokespersons of worlds experiencing destruction— thi s time at the hands of extractivism— ha ve re - vealed their practices through tele vi sion s tations and newspapers. Challeng - ing the legitimacy of the wi ll to destroy, they have shared that nature or the environment— th e ma tter of public concern—is not only such. Revelations of unimaginable beings and their destruction can be as ubiquitous as the war against those who oppose what the state considers (at least so far) its mission to provide for the common good. The one- wo rld world that Chris ti an it y and modernity collaboratively built and sustained is being challenged— per haps at an unpre ce dent ed rate since its inauguration \bve hundred years ago. Her e I propose that the moment the anthropo- no t- se en, as the destruction of worlds , seems to have acquired a might and speed that early extirpators of idolatries and nineteenth- cent ury explorers (turned rubber and sugar plan - tation investors) would envy is also the moment when, from the other side of the coin— th e anthropo- no t seen as worlds defending themselves against their destruction — stories emerge that may bring into existence a public that does not yet exist (Warner 2\f\f5). Thus, even if what becomes public is a translation into environmental and hum an rights concerns, the denuncia - tions (and the alliances that make them pos si ble) offer a possibility for onto - logical openings that deserves attention. Stories from the Anthropo- No t- Se en We need stories (and theories) that are just big enough to gather up the complexities and keep the edges open and greedy for surprising new and old connections.

— DONNA HARAWAY, “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin” Analogous to the Awajun Wampis people’s claim of being their ancestral ter - ritories, and their assertion of kinship with the forest, in a dispute about petroleum extraction at a site called Vaca Muerta (Argentina), a Mapu - che group wrote in a communiqué, “Our territories are not ‘resources’ but lives that make the Ixo\bjmogen [life of all lives] of which we are part, not its Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

46 Marisol de la Cadena owners.” 10 In contrast, this is how Vaca Muerta is de\bned by developers from Neuquén, one of the provinces included in the hydrocarbon deposit at issue: “Vaca Muerta is an im men se páramo [a barren cold plateau]. A desert that extends beyond what the eyes can see. . . . It i s a hostile territory that shelters enough energy to make Argentina self- sufficien t and even export gas and oil to the world.” 11 The stark contrast between th ese statements suggests that the public dispute is not only about petroleum extraction. The Mapuche decla - ration reveals the inherent relationality between the entities that compose Ixo\bjmogen, which therefore cannot be easily divided into territory and the resources extracted from it. What the oil com pa ny enacts as nature and humans, the Mapuche do not only enact as such. 12 Their interruption of the hegemonic partition is a po lit i ca l worlding event that is also conceptual: it performs an ontological opening into that partition that makes pos si ble t he enactment of hum ans with nature. This condition (which is not simply a mix of humans and nature) makes each more than just one of them. What is more, entities may emerge as materially speci\bc to (and through) the re - lation that inherently connects them. An example from my own work in the Andes of Cuzco: runakuna (the local Quechua word for pe ople) with tirakuna (earth beings, entities that are also— yet n ot only— mo untains) are together in complex materiality and liveliness as they jointly fabricate place and are fabricated by it (de la Cadena 2\f14, 2\f15); in contrast, the materiality in and of the relation between modern lively hum ans and inert mountains makes them distinct from each other. 13 Runakuna with earth beings are, of course, not a requirement of the pro - cesses that have emerged to question the universality of the partition of the sensible into nature and hum ans. Her e is another example: In the northern Andes of Peru, a mining corporation plans to drain several lagoons to ex - tract copper and gold from some, and to drain mineral waste in ot hers. In exchange, reservoirs with a wat er capacity several times that of the lagoons would be built. Opposing the plan, environmentalists argue that the reser - voirs will destroy the ecosystem of which the lagoons are part: a landscape made of agricultural land, high- al titude wetlands, ca ttle, hum ans, trees, crops, creeks, and springs. The local population adds that the lagoons are local life: their plants, animals, soils, trees, and families are with that spe - ci\bc water, which cannot be translated into wat er from reservoirs, not even if, as the mining corporation promises, they would provide more wat er. It would not be the same water; to defend it, they have or ga nized t hemselves as “guardians of the lagoons.” Many guardians have died in this defense, mak - ing public another instance of the war against th ose who oppose the transla -Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

Uncommoning Nature 47 tion of nature into resources. Yet the guardians of the lagoons have never said that the wat er is a being; what they say is that it is local wat er: the wat er with which they, their plants, their animals, and, ultimately, “their natures” are . As such, it is untranslatable to H 2O and cannot be used for the general common good. Rather, transpiring through local bodies ( hum an and other- than- human), through the po lit i ca l practice of its guardians, the wat er from these lagoons emerges as it emplaces entities and makes itself uncommon nature, or nature already occupied by local bodies and therefore unavailable for transformation into the state or the corporation’s interests if they do not coincide with th ose of their bodies. This lagoon wat er, and the “nature” it is, is a complex boundary object in this conflict. On one side, nature is half of a dualism; on the other, encom- passing human and other- th an- hum an heterogeneities, nature is an almost meaningless term. Complexly, then, lagoon wat er is itself not only natu ral, and nature is not only Nature. 14 The politics that it— th e lagoon wat er— pr oposes are equally complex and elude the kind of either-or analyses that require on - tological agreement about what is. An iconic guardian of the lagoons is a peasant wo man whose plots the corporate mining proj ec t wants to buy to fully legalize its access to the territories it plans to excavate. The wo man, whose name is Máxima Acuña, refuses to sell— an d prob ab ly for an amount of money that she would other - wise not ever see in her lifetime. Countless times, the national police force, hired by the mine, has destroyed the fami ly’s crops and attacked her and her children and even her animals; influenced by the mine, several judiciary courts have ruled against the wo man. She has also won some legal ba ttles: as I wrote this piece, a judiciary court ordered the national police force to pro- tect the woman and her fami ly from the mine. The wo man’s plots have been under siege for more than three years now. “I \bght to protect the lagoon” has been one of her responses. And, asserting attachment to place, she adds, “I am not going to stop; they wi ll dis ap pear me. But I wi ll die with the land” (personal communication). Her refusal to sell is incomprehensible to the dominant market- or iented rationality. It may also remind us of similarities between Máxima and Bar - tleby, the scrivener in Herman Melville’s ([1853] 2\f\f7) story, whose refusal to do as requested by th ose who surrounded him has provoked numerous philosophical musings. 15 Bartleby says that he “would prefer not to” do as his superiors ask. Be cause the requests seem logical and be cause the scrivener does not explain why he “prefers not to,” he drives his superiors crazy. Simi - larly, Máxima’s refusal to sell has driven more than one person crazy: she Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

48 Marisol de la Cadena prevents the mining com pa ny from accomplishing their goal. Yet she is not necessarily agrammatical, at least not in the sense of disengagement from the social that Gilles Deleuze (1998) accords to Bartleby’s agrammaticality.

Through the lens of modern politics (and using the grammar that sepa- rates humans and universal nature), we can interpret this wo man’s actions as defending the ecosystem: an environmentalist, and thus an enem y or an ally, depending on who speaks. Driven to exasperation, supporters of the reservoirs (and also “rational” politicians) see her as a cunning manipulator awaiting a better price for her plot; to th ose on the other side of the po lit i - cal spectrum— th e complexity of which I wi ll explain and where I include myself— she is a hero willing to sacri\bce herself to prevent ecological dam - age. 16 In the language of both detractors and supporters, she is a subject in relation to an object— an d thus perfectly grammatical as she acts in response to conditions imposed on her. However, the “refusal to sell” may include an - other relation: one from which woman- la nd- la goon (or plants- ro cks- so ils- animals- lagoons- humans- creeks— canals!!!) emerge inherently together: an entanglement of entities needy of each other in such a way that pulling them apart would transform them into something el se. 17 Refusing to sell may also refuse the grammar that transforms the entities into individual bodies, units of nature or the environment, which when they are part of each other, they are not. Thus analyzed, Máxima’s refusal would be the act of a private thinker, one who thinks with her own forces (see Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 62) to enact a locally ecologized nature (entities interdependent on each other) that si mu l ta ne ously coincides with, differs from, and even exceeds (also because it includes hum ans) the object that the state, the mining cor - poration, and the environmentalists translate into resources to be exploited or defended. Carving out “a kind of foreign language within language” (De - leuze 1998, 72), she also makes herself agrammatical to the subject and ob- ject relation and to the social thus made. Her response is driven by a logic that exceeds both that of pro\bt and gain, and that of the environment and its defense. In this sense, Máxima’s response might be like Bartleby’s formula as proposed by Deleuze: a response that exceeds any known or expected logic, one that may muddle any attributed social position, while at the same time self- asserting composite positions that communicate with usual grammars and at the same time open them up to other possibilities. If she is an environmentalist— an d I think she is— sh e is not only an envi- ronmentalist. Defending herself, and also go ing beyond herself, she declares her stewardship of the lagoons and all that their wat ers are and allow— an d she does that in more than one way. She confronts the mine by arguing that Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

Uncommoning Nature 49 the land is her property— sh e even shows the legal do cuments that prove her owner ship. However, when Máxima explains how her being with the land is impossible to detach or break apart, how their being together is through/ with crops, rain, soil, animals— ent ities that make/are the relation— her ex - planation, I propose, exceeds the limits of the property concept, where she nevertheless also meets the mine in the confrontation. She stays be cause she is by staying; that this reads like a redundancy marks the agrammaticality of the woman’s decision. When I asked why she stayed (as many ot hers have done before me, and I am sure aft er), she replied, “What can I be if I am not this ? [And the word “place” is not uttered— ins tead, she stomps her feet.] This is who I am, how can I go? I wi ll die [The word “ her e” is not uttered.] who I am, with my bones I wi ll be [Once again “ her e” is not uttered.] like I am now.” Of course we can read her sentences through a habitual subject and object grammar, which I have suggested with the words in brackets; but the need for the brackets— th e nonutterances in Máxima’s answers are not blanks to be \blled— al so suggests that th ere is not only one grammar in her refusal to sell the land that the mine wants. Be cause we do not need help with our habits, I remark on the unusual.

Not only is a phrase that we (scholars or not) frequently use in our analy - sis— I have already used it in several paragraphs above. I learned to give this phrase conceptual status from conversations with Mariano Turpo, a friend with whom I collaborated on the ideas that came into a book I published not long ago (de la Cadena 2\f15). A Quechua speaker and a commuter across some of the worlds that make our country (Peru), he would insist that what to me was (or the thing that was to me, for example, a moun - tain or an archive) was not only that. And what it not only was, I had no \bgure or form for unt il it became that to me—or unt il, through laborious and patient practice, I was able to work my thought out of the habit of need - ing to grasp (many times barely) the entity or the practice. Grasping what was “not only” what emerged through my habitual practice of thought, in addition to taking time, required working at a permanent interface where Mariano’s worlding practices and mine wer e both seemingly alike and at the same time di ff er ent (de l a Cadena 2\f14, 2\f15). And what emerged at the interface, rather than “the” entity or practice in question, was a mutual “redescription” (Strathern 1988) of each other’s (Mariano’s and mine) con - cepts, forms, or \bgures in ways that always exceeded each other, even as they also overlapped. Drawing from this ethnographic- con ceptual experience, I propose to think Máxima’s refusal to leave through the notion of property (and its relations) and also through what may be not only property and the Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

5\f Marisol de la Cadena relations (or lack thereof ) that may emerge to make her (with- th ose- sh e-is).

Considering both relations si mu l ta ne ously, their mutual excesses may also be considered. I explain more below. Concepts do their work in an ecol ogy . They perform with the concepts they \bnd themselves in the com pa ny of (Strathern 2\f11, 23)— an d when Máxima practices her refusal to leave, “property” may emerge as a concept- multiple as she switches from becoming with “land” to legally defending herself vis- à- vi s the corporation’s attempt to evict her. The \brst, “becoming with land,” exceeds the legal n otion of property and emerges at its limit (i.e., when the legal co ncept is not anymore). “Refusing to leave” may be moti- vated by an ideological rejection of the mine’s desire to destroy lagoons, and it may also be a practice that de\bes commensuration—it renders land unoc - cupiable by the market, for it is integrally occupied by and occupying “the woman who wi ll not leave.” This last phrase— whic h circulates mostly in oral commentary— indic ates Máxima’s inconceivable de\bance to the mine and may also translate her agrammaticality: the enactment of a relation that modern property cannot sustain. This would include her capacity to become with the collective: the hum an guardians of the lagoons but also the other- than- human entities they guard. Intriguingly, her la wyer— al so a wo man and acquainted with the practices of the guardians of the lagoons— under stands this and, with it, her own inability to fully translate into the legal l anguage of property Máxima’s insistence on staying. In one of the many interviews Máxima has given, she mentions that a “com pa ny man” ( un hombre de la compañía ) threatened her, saying, “A flea wi ll never defeat an elephant.” 18 Belying that refrain, “the wo man who wi ll not leave” has gone to trial and with the help of her la wyer has defeated the mining corporation on at least two occasions. Explaining th ese wo men’s success, pundits in central news media emulate the “com pa ny man” and express their surprise in narratives that liken the \bght to that of David against Goliath. Indeed, th ere is a public for this story; what is not public in this undoubtedly surprising story is that the concepts that the flea and the elephant (or David and Goliath) employ are both the same and not only the same.

Along with surprise, complexity is relentless in this story: Máxima’s lawyer, a woman of impeccable professional ethics and astute professional practice, both trusts the veracity of the titles that represent the wo man’s owner ship to the land and is convinced that the mine is using fraudulent tactics to discredit th ose documents— yet she also thinks that Máxima’s wi ll to stay on the land exceeds legal a rgumentation. In a recent work, Isabelle Stengers writes, “What is proper to ev ery event is that it brings the fu ture Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

Uncommoning Nature 51 that will inherit from it into communication with a past narrated differ - ently” (2\f15, 39\f). If we attend to Máxima’s refusal to sell as an excess to modern property (rather than as a mining conflict that can be solved so that all can go back to normal), she may also be inscribing an event: she may be creating a refuge for life (including rocks and wat er and much more, for without them life is not) away from the destruction on which what currently passes for pro gr ess is predicated. She may be creating possibilities for an alternative future, one that, inheriting from Máxima’s stubbornness to stay and defend life, would be able to narrate the past— th at is, our pres ent—in a di ff er ent way. A Hopeful Ending: Uncommoning Nature or a Commons through Divergence Máxima’s story, like th ose of the Mapuches, the Awajun Wampis, and runa - kuna, is a story from the anthropo- no t- se en; while such stories seem to occur everywhere, the events are local. Told attending to place, the narratives may expose complexities that unsettle linear grammars and push concepts to their limits. Listened to with care, they reveal that the conflicts they nar - rate may include a disagreement that cannot \bnd easy resolution be cause it exceeds the existing domain of the rule of law, namely, the conception and regulation of nature as resources. If we consider (rather than deny) the possibility of excess— na mely, the assertion that nature is not only such, or that the materials that make it are also speci\bc to place and may include humans— these stories could open thought and feeling to that which is not only what to our common senses is . The requirement for this opening may be a disposition to give equivocation a po lit i ca l chance. This means a dis - position to consider that what is hegemonically— fo r example, nature (to continue with the same theme)— ma y also be other than nature even if it occupies the same space: not only a river, also a person; not only universal water, also local wat er; not only mountains, also earth beings; not only land, also Ixo\bjmogen. 19 In the pages that follow, I conclude this intervention with a speculation about the composition of a po lit i ca l alliance that welcomes agreements that accept the possibility of equivocation, not agreements made across di ff er- ent viewpoints about the same world, but th ose made taking into consider - ation that the viewpoints may correspond to worlds that are not only the same.

I speculate using the story of the guardians of the lagoons that Máxima’s recalcitrance has made famous, and fruitfully hopeful. It illustrates Donna Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

52 Marisol de la Cadena Haraway’s wish for stories “just big enough to gather up complexities and leave edges open for surprising new connections” (Haraway 2\f15, 16\f) to happen. Confronted with the mining com pa ny’s proposal to desiccate the lagoons, a heterogeneous network of environmentalists has backed the local guard - ians against the mining corporation. The cartoon I include her e reflects the alliance: a participant in the alliance, the cartoon’s author mocks the corpo - ration’s efforts to convince a rational peasant fami ly who, confronted with the choice between \bnite money and long- la sting land, uses a subject and object grammar and economic bene\bt logic to reasonably choose the latter (\bgure 1.1). Similarly, through a global extension of this network, Máxima received the Goldman Environmental Prize, a highly impor ta nt award hon - oring grassroots leaders. 20 These alliances are, however, complex. Occupying the same space (which “cannot be mapped in terms of a single set of three- dimensional coordinates”; Mol and Law 2\f\f2, 1), heterogeneous forms (uni- versal nature, the environment, wat er that resists translation to H 2O, land that is object and not, entities that I am calling ecologized nature—or nature FIGURE 1.1. Complex alliances against extractivism: The man driving the excavator says to the peasant fami ly, “You are poor. If you sell your mountain and your lagoon to me, you wi ll have money.” The peasant fami ly replies, “Once the money is spent, we will have neither mountain nor lagoon.” The man responds, “Ignorant!!” Diario La República (Lima), July 16, 2\f12. Used by permission of artist Carlos Tovar Samanez, also known as Carlín. Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

Uncommoning Nature 53 recalcitrant to universality) converge in the network through agreements that do not preclude differences. For example, in comparison to the car- toonist’s depiction, the economic security of her fami ly may not \bgure as de\bnitely in Máxima’s refusal to sell; yet they share a support for not sell - ing. 21 Similarly, the interest that environmentalists and the guardians of the lagoons share—to defend nature, or the environment— ma y be not only the same interest: the locally ecologized nature of the guardians and the biologi - cally de\bned nature of (global and national) environmental activists may indeed exceed each other as it is not only the same nature. However, both cases house the possibility for an agreement that, rather that converging on identical interests, would be underpinned by “uncommonalities”: interests in common that are not the same interest. This agreement speaks of the possibility for an alternative alliance, one that along with coincidences may include the parties’ constitutive divergence: they may converge without be - coming the same. Such an agreement could include discussion about the one- world world as an ontological condition that participants in the alliance do not share homogeneously and that, consequently, may be a source of fric - tion among them. 22 Underpinned by terms that could alter politics as usual, this alliance would also ho use hope for a commons that does not require the division between universal nature and diversi\bed hum ans. A commons constantly emerging from the uncommons as grounds for po lit i ca l negotiation of what (resulting from the latter) would become the interest in common, and thus the commons. This commons (always ephemeral and subject to change) would not be without uncommons: rather than (only) the expression of shared relations and stewardship of nature, this commons would (also) be the expression of a worlding of many worlds ecologically related across their constitutive divergence. As a practice of life that takes care of interests in common, without requiring that th ese be the same interest, the alliance between environmentalists and local guardians (of lagoons, rivers, forests) could engage in (and become through) a conversation that considers the hegemony of the ontological distribution of the world into universal nature and locally differentiated hum ans without, however, considering such a distri- bution a requirement. The alliance would thus express a confrontation with the agreement that made the anthropo- no t- se en and would question the legitimacy of the war against th ose who disagree with that distribution. The partition of the world into diversi\bed hum ans and homogeneous nature— or, rather, and more radically, the making of the world into one through the imposition of the homogeneity of such a partition— cou ld become a ma tter Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

54 Marisol de la Cadena of po liti cal concern. Thus, the ontological sameness that modern politics requires could be questioned, and along with it a novel consequence would be inaugurated: disagreement concerning ways of world making (i.e., on- tological politics) could even take place among those who share ontological sameness (i.e., those who world in similar ways). Illustrative of this possibil - ity is the disagreement between the mining corporation that wants to evict “the woman who does not want to leave” and the la wyer who defends her.

The alliance between the two wo men is the other side of the same coin. In an alliance across worlds that are not only the same, what brings them together is an interest in common that is not the same interest: their interests mutu - ally exceed each other’s, as the two wo men converge in a complex notion of property— one that upholds their divergent ways of being with wat er, land, animals—to contend with the mine. 23 Similar unexpected alliances may have emerged as extractivism, stimu- lated by the prices of minerals and neoliberal policies, became apparently unstoppable and accelerated the de\bnition of nature as resources, which it also makes ubiquitous. The paradox could be that the ruthlessness of extractivism has made public collectives that oppose the (extractivist) de- struction of who they are (and not only of nature) making alliances with environmentalists (for whom nature may be only nature). Extractivism is the trope through which the Anthropocene makes itself pres ent in L atin Amer i ca, and like on the planetary scale, it threatens with the destruction of what makes it pos si ble , ending with the gradual annihilation of life itself.

Seen through extractivism (including the opposition to it), the Anthro - pocene might be a historical moment of implosion, when the war against disobedient worlding practices turned against the world that waged it and, in so doing, also revealed the impossibility of the destruction of worlds that exceeded, \brst, the word of God and, la ter on, the word of the mod - ern human— ca p i ta l is t and socialist alike. Defending themselves against the current destruction, the collectives that exceed the divides between “ human” and “non- hum an” have become vis i ble , manifesting their excess.

The re sis tance to the not- se en war erupts in public, excessive collectives asserting their being and demanding politics beyond the rights the state might (or might not) benevolently grant through culture. A far cry from being a “conflict as usual,” their disagreement with the state may be about territorial sovereignty, and not only about that. It may express the public demand to allow in politics conditions of “no nature, no culture” (Strathern 198\f) that have been historically denied being. The silence that cloaked the war against disobedient worlding practices may be coming to an end; their Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

Uncommoning Nature 55 destruction (and the \bght against it) can be ubiquitously seen on all types of screens. Paradoxically, the era of the Anthropocene may witness the his- torical end of the not- se en. Notes I am grateful for comments by Judy Farquhar, Cristiana Giordano, Stefanie Graeter, John Law, Casper Bruun Jensen, and Brit Winthereik.

1. Contribution by Mia Mayixuan Li, September 29, 2\f16, http:// www . rainforestfoundation . org / 53 - indigenous - leaders - in - perus - 2\f\f9 - baguazo - acquitted - of - all - charges / Rainforest Foundation.

2. Santiago Manuin Valera, “Red Cooperacción,” April 16, 2\f14, http:// www . cooperaccion . org . p e / n oticias / 1\f - n oticias / 2 14\f - p ronunciamiento - de - s antiago - m anuin - contra - la - peticion - de - cadena - perpetua - contra - su - persona .

3. Santiago Manuin Valera, “Red Cooperacción,” April 16, 2\f14, http:// www . cooperaccion . org . p e / n oticias / 1\f - n oticias / 2 14\f - p ronunciamiento - de - s antiago - m anuin - contra - la - peticion - de - cadena - perpetua - contra - su - persona .

4. Los Sucesos de Bagua, http:// www . s ervindi . o rg / p roducciones / v ideos / 1 3\f83 . Also quoted in de la Cadena 2\f1\f, 363. 5. Servindi, Comunicación intercultural para un mundo más humano y diverso, “Para Perico La territorialidad no era sólo un concepto,” Video Audio de Shapiom Noningo, January 29, 2\f16, http:// www . s ervindi . o rg / ac tualidad - n oticias - radio teca - videos / 29 / \f1 / 2\f16 / para - perico - la - territorialidad - no - era - solo - un. 6. In a similar vein, Bruno Latour (2\f\f2, 25, 26, 27) conceptualizes th ese wars as “latent,” “never declared,” “considered simp le police operations.” 7. For example, Chuquicamata, a copper mine in Chile, extends over eight hundred hectares and has a depth of 1,25\f meters (Gudynas 2\f15).

8. One of the greatest current fracking threats in South Amer i ca i s located in the Entre Ríos region of Argentina and the neighboring area of Uruguay, in the Paraná Chaco, where the extraction of shale oil and shale gas is planned. In Santiago Navarro and Renata Bessi, “Fracking Expands in Latin Amer i ca Thr eatening to Contaminate World’s Third Largest Aquifer,” December 11, 2\f15, http:// www . a lternet . o rg / f racking / fracking - expands - latin - america - threatening - contaminate - worlds - third - largest - aquifer .

9. Antonio Caballero, “Miseria arti\bcial,” Arcadia , March 23, 2\f16, http:// www . revistaarcadia . com / opinion / columnas / articulo / antonio - caballero - escribe - sobre - la - guajira - y - saqueo - a - los - indigenas - wayuu / 477\f8 .

1\f. Puerta E Red Eco, “Vaca Muerta una situación Urgente que no da para más,” Argenpress, Info Prensa Argentina para todo el mundo, October 7, 2\f14, http:// www . argenpress . info / 2\f14 / 1\f / vaca - muerta - una - situacion - urgente - que . h tml . 11. “Un viaje a las entrañas de Vaca Muerta, el fu ture energético del país,” March 7, 2\f15, Misiones Online, http:// misionesonline . n et / 2\f 15 / \f 3 / \f 7 / un - v iaje - a - l as - en tranas - de - vaca - muerta - el - futuro - energetico - del - pais / .Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

56 Marisol de la Cadena 12. I have explained this in other works. When persons live across more than one, less than many worlds, their practices may enact entities that are not only what they also are. For example, across the world of mining and the world of earth beings, the latter may emerge also as mountains and not only as earth beings (or vice ver sa of course.) See de la Cadena (2\f1\f) and (2\f15). John Law (2\f15) calls this the capacity for both- and (rather than either- or).

13. As runakuna and earth beings become together as place, they embody the ma- teriality of human and geological bodies and exceed it. Their liveliness (see Tsing, this volume) is an intrarelation, a mutual enactment that does not depend on the hum an only as being such— on ly hum an—it is not a runakuna condition. Rather, closer to what Anna Tsing suggests could be a modern analytical mode of attention, runakuna are attuned to the ways of earth beings (which includes soil, wat er, pebbles, and rocks that are not only such) but also vice versa: they are together (and with plants and animals). And this differs from Tsing’s proposal.

14. “Boundary object” is a term coined by Star and Griesemer (1989)— I th ank Judy Farquhar for conversations that fed this paragraph.

15. See also Harvey and Knox (2\f15) for a similar description of an Andean Bartleby.

16. One article that portrays her as a manipulator is Ricardo Uceda, “El Pantanoso caso Chaupe,” La República , February 24, 2\f15, http:// larepublica . pe / 24 - \f2 - 2\f15 / el - pantanoso - caso - chaupe .

17. Another example of a similar relational materiality: peasants in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (Oaxaca, Mexico) have rejected the installation of windmills, which would transform the relationship between air, birds, ocean wat er, \bsh, and pe ople (Howe and Boyer 2\f15).

18. Máxima Acuña, “Me dijeron: Una pulga nunca le va a ganar a un elefante,” Mamágrande Films, posted October 16, 2\f13, 7 mins., https:// www . y outube . co m / watch ? v=5dFm5JuUz1A. 19. “Divergence”— th e \bnal word of the subhead above—is a notion I borrow from Stengers (2\f\f5). It refers to the constitutive difference that makes practices what they are and as they connect across difference, even ontological difference.

2\f. Máxima Acuña, “Galardonada del Goldman Environmental Prize 2\f16 para Sur y Centroamérica” (Goldman Environmental Prize), April 19, 2\f16, 5.3\f mins., http:// www . g oldmanprize . o rg / r ecipient / m axima - ac una / . 21. For example, in a recent interview Máxima declared, “I’d rather not have money.

My land makes me happy, money does not.” Máxima Acuña interviewed by Joseph Zárate, Revista Etiqueta Negra , April 24, 2\f15, http:// etiquetanegra . com . pe / articulos / maxima - acuna - la - dama - de - la - laguna - azul - versus - la - laguna - negra . 22. The argument that the one- wo rld world is heterogeneously shared is one of the main ideas in Law (2\f15). What I add her e is that the alliance ho uses the possibility for the discussion of this condition.

23. Penny Harvey (this volume) examines the vitality of none other than concrete, an exemplar of what a “material” might be, and using it to think with the material of “the woman who wi ll not leave” may seem far- fet ched. However, the politics of the guardians of the lagoons, in step with the invitation that this volume makes, compli-Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

Uncommoning Nature 57 cate distinctions between hum an and material politics. Thus, I want to propose an in - terpretation of the alliance between Máxima and her la wyer that is similar to Harvey’s analy sis of the vitality of concrete, which, she explains, is composed as its intrinsic components combine with conditions that extend beyond concrete. Analogously, the alliance between Máxima and her la wyer against the corporation takes into consid - eration the separation between hum ans and nature that the law requires; yet their nonseparation also needs to be seriously considered as an intrinsic component in the negotiation between the two wo men. References Bebbington, Anthony. 2\f15. “Po lit i ca l Ecologies of Resource Extraction: Agendas pendientes.” Eu ro pean Review of Latin American and Ca ri b be an Studies 1\f\f (De- cember): 85–98.

de la Cadena, Marisol. 2\f1\f. “Indigenous Cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual Reflections beyond ‘Politics.’ ” Cultural Anthropology 25, no. 2: 334–37\f. de la Cadena, Marisol. 2\f14. “Runa: Hum an but Not O n ly.” hau: Journal of Ethno- graphic Theory 4, no. 2: 253–259.

de la Cadena, Marisol. 2\f15. Earth Beings: Ecologies of Practice across Andean Worlds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Deleuze, Gilles. 1998. Essays Critical and Clinical. New York: Verso.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 1994. What Is Philosophy? New York: Columbia University Press.

Foucault, Michel. 2\f\f3. “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France 1975–1976 . New York: Picador.

Greene, Shane. 2\f\f9. “Making Old Histories New in the Peruvian Amazon.” Anthro - pology Now 1, no. 3: 52–6\f.

Gudynas, Eduardo. 2\f15. Extractivismos: Ecología, economía y política de un modo de entender el desarrollo y la naturaleza. La Paz: Centro de Documentación e Infor - mación Bolivia.

Haraway, Donna. 2\f15. “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin.” Environmental Humanities 6: 159–165.

Harvey, Penelope, and Hannah Knox. 2\f15. Roads: An Anthropology of Infrastructure and Expertise. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Howe, C., and D. Boyer. 2\f15. “Aeolian Politics.” Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 16, no. 1: 31–48. http:// dx . doi . o rg / 1\f . 1\f8\f / 16\f\f91\fX . 2\f 15 . 1\f 22564 .

Kuletz, Valerie. 1998. The Tainted Desert: Environmental and Social Ruin in the Ameri- c a n We s t . New York: Routledge.

Latour, Bruno. 2\f\f2. War of the Worlds: What about Peace? Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. Law, John. 2\f15. “What’s Wrong with a One- Wo rld World?” Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 16, no. 1: 126–139.

Melville, Herman. (1853) 2\f\f7. Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street. London: Hesperus. Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.

58 Marisol de la Cadena Mol, Annemarie, and John Law. 2\f\f2. Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Rancière, Jacques. 1999. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minneapolis: Univer - sity of Minnesota Press.

Serres, Michel. 2\f11. Malfeasance: Appropriation through Pollution? Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Star, Susan Leigh, and James Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecol ogy , ‘Translations,’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Verte- brate Zoology, 19\f7–39.” Social Studies of Science 19, no. 4: 387–42\f.

Stengers, Isabelle. 2\f\f5. “Introductory Notes on an Ecol ogy o f Practices.” Cultural Studies Review 11, no. 1: 183–196.

Stengers, Isabelle. 2\f15. In Catastrophic Times: Resisting the Coming Barbarism. London: Open Humanities Press/Meson Press. http:// openhumanitiespress . org / books / titles / in - catastrophic - times .

Strathern, Marilyn. 198\f. “No Nature, No Culture: The Hagen Case.” In Nature, Culture and Gender, edited by Carol MacCormack and Marilyn Strathern, 174–221.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Strathern, Marilyn. 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Prob lems w ith Wo men and Prob lems with Society in Melanesia Studies in Melanesian Anthropology . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Strathern, Marilyn. 2\f11. “Sharing, Stealing and Borrowing Si mu l ta ne ously.” In Owner ship and Appropriation , edited by Veronica Strang and Mark Busse, 23–42.

Oxford: Berg.

Svampa, Maristella. 2\f15. “Commodities Consensus: Neoextractivism and Enclosure of the Commons in Latin Amer i ca. ” South Atlantic Quarterly 114, no. 1: 65–82.

Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 2\f\f4. “Perspectival Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Equivocation.” Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Low- land South Amer i ca 2, no. 1: 3–22.

Warner, Michael. 2\f\f5. Publics and Counterpublics. Brooklyn, NY: Zone Books. Harvey, P., Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (Eds.). (2019). Anthropos and the material. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ucr on 2020-02-06 09:28:24.