Rambling Thoughts on Earth Beings

The following is a short post for an anthropology course, centered on de la Cadena's use of Trouillot. I thought her book was one of the more interesting ones for the course, and my rambling thoughts on it appeared to have impressed my professor.

Marisol de la Cadena Earth Beings invokes Trouillot’s well-known Silencing of the Past multiple times throughout the book. Trouillot, who argued that the Haitian Revolution was unthinkable to European observers, is utilized by de la Cadena to argue why indigenous leaders such as Mariano Turpo were not recognized for their leadership. Like African-descended slaves in 18th century Saint Domingue, the runakuna of Peru were not seen as capable of rational political agency (61). Both liberalism and socialism perpetuate this refusal to recognize indigenous politics drawing on earth politics, which de la Cadena attributes to onto-epistemic practices of history which, beginning with Hegel and other Western thinkers, “canceled the world-making potential of practices that escaped the nature-humanity divide” (146). Similarly, the coloniality of politics and history, in which nature and humanity were divided, became the foundation of modern politics (92).

De la Cadena later connects epistemic disconcertment to Trouillot’s notion of the unthinkable, suggesting that instead of recognition, epistemic disconcertment has the potential to make one challenge what and how one knows (276). Building from her conclusions on the coloniality of modern politics and the importance of divergence or partial connections, de la Cadena seems to propose a politics underpinned by divergence (286). What this exactly looks like is not entirely clear, but she argues that the cosmo-politics of the runakuna, in which the in-ayllu includes earth-beings as well as humans, operates through divergence with modern politics and its possibility is not determined by contradiction (283). If my interpretation of de la Cadena’s argument is correct, she appears to be arguing for a coexistence of modern politics and earth politics in which neither one cancels the other. How would that work? Like Ari, she also noted the conflicts between Andean indigenous movements and their respective national governments regarding extractive mining or oil operations (284). The ontological disagreement on the rights of nature of Pachamama does not seem to be the grounds through which one can develop cosmovivir, either.