Good Living and Indigenous Potatoes 97
or the territory of a community. Recently, however, there is a tendency to
reposition the term in a way that emphasizes the idea that Andean conceptions
of the environment do not rest on a naturalist ontology (de la Cadena, 2015).
ANDES uses the term in a similar way, although it does not reference the work
of de la Cadena.
18 This discourse identifies three ayllu or distinct communities (Argumedo & Wong, 2010). First, the runa ayllu, or the “community of
human beings”, refers specifically the community of peasants, according to the
terminology used in communities within the region (runa meaning “man” or
“person” in Quechua). Second, the sallqa ayllu, or “the community of wild natural resources”, includes both animal and plant lives. Third, there is the awki ayllu,
or “the community of spiritual powers”, more often called apu and Pachamama
in the Cusco region (Isbell, 1978; Valderrama Fernández & Escalante Gutiérrez,
1988; La Riva González, 2005; Ricard Lanata, 2010).
Until recently, the structure of the NGO’s website explicitly followed the
distinction of these three communities, around which various ongoing and completed projects were organized. The decolonialist aspect of the vision manifests
itself in the use of ethnohistorical sources and, above all, in the use of a drawing
that supposedly existed as an altarpiece in the Qoricancha, the former Inca temple
upon whose foundations the temple of Santo Domingo was built. This drawing
appears in the 1574 chronicle of Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamayhua (1879 [1574], pp. 16–17) (Figure 3.3). Although ethnohistorians have
shown that this drawing should be interpreted as an evangelizing tool (Duviols,
1997),
19 in certain pro-indigenous circles, it is considered to be “emblematic of
Andean cosmology”.
20 In this sense, ANDES used the drawing in participatory
workshops with peasants in order to identify the various communities (ayllu) of
humans and non-humans according to Andean cosmology.
Thus, ANDES consulted the local population with respect to the debates
taking place in certain intellectual and activist circles. Interviews carried out
on site show that peasants recognize each term in Quechua (runa, sallqa, ayllu),
but they do not necessarily associate them as different kinds of ayllu. The division into three communities makes sense for peasants already familiar with the
ANDES vision. Some indicated that it had not been easy to appropriate the idea.
From the perspective of anthropological or philosophical theory, these three
ayllu place communities of non-humans on the same footing as the collectivity
of humans. They form a hybrid collective in the sense of Latour (2004a), which
brings into question the opposition of nature and culture which, as Descola has
shown (Descola, 2005; Descola & Sahlins, 2014), is not universal and is not
applicable to Andean peasants.
21 Furthermore, such ontological arguments need
to be understood in a context where their political impact is tangible, that is,
from the perspective of political ontology as in cases studied by Blaser (2009)
and Martínez Mauri (2007). In the case of Potato Park, these arguments are
marshalled in a joint defense of cultural and biological diversity, in continuity
with the position developed by Maffi and Woodley (2010), with the participation
of Alejandro Argumedo since 1996. Since Argumedo found the linguistic aspect
or the territory of a community. Recently, however, there is a tendency to
reposition the term in a way that emphasizes the idea that Andean conceptions
of the environment do not rest on a naturalist ontology (de la Cadena, 2015).
ANDES uses the term in a similar way, although it does not reference the work
of de la Cadena.
18 This discourse identifies three ayllu or distinct communities (Argumedo & Wong, 2010). First, the runa ayllu, or the “community of
human beings”, refers specifically the community of peasants, according to the
terminology used in communities within the region (runa meaning “man” or
“person” in Quechua). Second, the sallqa ayllu, or “the community of wild natural resources”, includes both animal and plant lives. Third, there is the awki ayllu,
or “the community of spiritual powers”, more often called apu and Pachamama
in the Cusco region (Isbell, 1978; Valderrama Fernández & Escalante Gutiérrez,
1988; La Riva González, 2005; Ricard Lanata, 2010).
Until recently, the structure of the NGO’s website explicitly followed the
distinction of these three communities, around which various ongoing and completed projects were organized. The decolonialist aspect of the vision manifests
itself in the use of ethnohistorical sources and, above all, in the use of a drawing
that supposedly existed as an altarpiece in the Qoricancha, the former Inca temple
upon whose foundations the temple of Santo Domingo was built. This drawing
appears in the 1574 chronicle of Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamayhua (1879 [1574], pp. 16–17) (Figure 3.3). Although ethnohistorians have
shown that this drawing should be interpreted as an evangelizing tool (Duviols,
1997),
19 in certain pro-indigenous circles, it is considered to be “emblematic of
Andean cosmology”.
20 In this sense, ANDES used the drawing in participatory
workshops with peasants in order to identify the various communities (ayllu) of
humans and non-humans according to Andean cosmology.
Thus, ANDES consulted the local population with respect to the debates
taking place in certain intellectual and activist circles. Interviews carried out
on site show that peasants recognize each term in Quechua (runa, sallqa, ayllu),
but they do not necessarily associate them as different kinds of ayllu. The division into three communities makes sense for peasants already familiar with the
ANDES vision. Some indicated that it had not been easy to appropriate the idea.
From the perspective of anthropological or philosophical theory, these three
ayllu place communities of non-humans on the same footing as the collectivity
of humans. They form a hybrid collective in the sense of Latour (2004a), which
brings into question the opposition of nature and culture which, as Descola has
shown (Descola, 2005; Descola & Sahlins, 2014), is not universal and is not
applicable to Andean peasants.
21 Furthermore, such ontological arguments need
to be understood in a context where their political impact is tangible, that is,
from the perspective of political ontology as in cases studied by Blaser (2009)
and Martínez Mauri (2007). In the case of Potato Park, these arguments are
marshalled in a joint defense of cultural and biological diversity, in continuity
with the position developed by Maffi and Woodley (2010), with the participation
of Alejandro Argumedo since 1996. Since Argumedo found the linguistic aspect