Good Living and Indigenous Potatoes 105
valorization of Sumaq kawsay feeds the religious tensions at the heart of these communities. Not least, the people who have key roles in the Potato Park are mainly
Catholic, which aggravates underlying tensions. This bias of ANDES plays against
the NGO since these tensions may manifest themselves within the “bureau” of the
Park and lead to the withdrawal of a community. The recognition of the Park by
the State will possibly alleviate this problem.
Conclusion
The Peruvian NGO ANDES has formalized an alternative vision of biodiversity
based upon the Potato Park. On the surface, it would seem that the issue is simply one of explaining the peasants’ worldview, but it turns out that the situation
is much more complex. The vision draws upon the specific logic of the working
group on article 8(j) of the CBD, and should be understood in a context where
Bolivia fiercely promotes a vision with the same name. In this context, opposition to neoliberal conceptualizations of nature is the common denominator that
unites local and indigenous communities together with their representatives. In
this way, ANDES engages in an effort at ontological diplomacy, trying to make
the CDB and the working group on article 8(j) – the main international institution involved in environmental conservation and in recognizing the rights of local
and indigenous communities – recognize the existence of alternative relationships
to the environment. Thus, there is a certain intertextuality at work that leads to
the “intercultural politicization of cosmological categories” (Albert, 1993, p. 369):
local cosmological categories – as they are perceived, understood, and explained by
the NGO – are mobilized in such a way that they will resonate with those of other
actors. In this framework, anchoring local cosmology within the non-modern
composition of worlds appears as the most effective rallying point for the actors
involved with local and indigenous communities in this domain.
In order to formulate this discourse, the NGO has taken inspiration from the
practices and concepts of the local population, but according to a non-local logic.
This translates into a tendency to reconstitute a pre-Hispanic Andean worldview.
This in turn leads to a hyper-valorization of the “Catholic” perspective (as it is
paradoxically considered locally), while the Protestant perspective does not have
a voice. Thus, the overall vision remains unfamiliar to most people concerned.
The Sumaq kawsay that is promoted is the philosophy of a “model Andean”.
29
Although the ontological dimension of the vision is less relevant at the national
level,
30 the international recognition of ANDES allows it to mobilize alliances
and to successfully position itself in national debates, for example, on GMOs,
biopiracy, and laws concerning seed.
Thus, ANDES participates internationally in the recognition of a non-naturalist
conceptualization of the environment, a vision which – although it is not completely faithful to the peasants’ conceptualization – has “transformative potential”,
to use Stengers’ term (2005), and may contribute to the development of a “common
world” (Latour, 2004a). ANDES displays a powerful ontological diplomacy. The
valorization of Sumaq kawsay feeds the religious tensions at the heart of these communities. Not least, the people who have key roles in the Potato Park are mainly
Catholic, which aggravates underlying tensions. This bias of ANDES plays against
the NGO since these tensions may manifest themselves within the “bureau” of the
Park and lead to the withdrawal of a community. The recognition of the Park by
the State will possibly alleviate this problem.
Conclusion
The Peruvian NGO ANDES has formalized an alternative vision of biodiversity
based upon the Potato Park. On the surface, it would seem that the issue is simply one of explaining the peasants’ worldview, but it turns out that the situation
is much more complex. The vision draws upon the specific logic of the working
group on article 8(j) of the CBD, and should be understood in a context where
Bolivia fiercely promotes a vision with the same name. In this context, opposition to neoliberal conceptualizations of nature is the common denominator that
unites local and indigenous communities together with their representatives. In
this way, ANDES engages in an effort at ontological diplomacy, trying to make
the CDB and the working group on article 8(j) – the main international institution involved in environmental conservation and in recognizing the rights of local
and indigenous communities – recognize the existence of alternative relationships
to the environment. Thus, there is a certain intertextuality at work that leads to
the “intercultural politicization of cosmological categories” (Albert, 1993, p. 369):
local cosmological categories – as they are perceived, understood, and explained by
the NGO – are mobilized in such a way that they will resonate with those of other
actors. In this framework, anchoring local cosmology within the non-modern
composition of worlds appears as the most effective rallying point for the actors
involved with local and indigenous communities in this domain.
In order to formulate this discourse, the NGO has taken inspiration from the
practices and concepts of the local population, but according to a non-local logic.
This translates into a tendency to reconstitute a pre-Hispanic Andean worldview.
This in turn leads to a hyper-valorization of the “Catholic” perspective (as it is
paradoxically considered locally), while the Protestant perspective does not have
a voice. Thus, the overall vision remains unfamiliar to most people concerned.
The Sumaq kawsay that is promoted is the philosophy of a “model Andean”.
29
Although the ontological dimension of the vision is less relevant at the national
level,
30 the international recognition of ANDES allows it to mobilize alliances
and to successfully position itself in national debates, for example, on GMOs,
biopiracy, and laws concerning seed.
Thus, ANDES participates internationally in the recognition of a non-naturalist
conceptualization of the environment, a vision which – although it is not completely faithful to the peasants’ conceptualization – has “transformative potential”,
to use Stengers’ term (2005), and may contribute to the development of a “common
world” (Latour, 2004a). ANDES displays a powerful ontological diplomacy. The