Unmaking the Nature/Culture Divide 133
Mother Earth – tends to personify this approach. This display of u niqueness
comes at a price; the IPLCs bring along diverse concepts that tend to be assimilated to each other. It seems, therefore, as if all IPLCs attribute a central position to Mother Earth, which is not the case. Yet, this kind of politics has an
essential symbolic reach by allowing the IPLCs to position themselves as a relatively homogenous group. This message is invoked in the spaces for expression
situated at the margins of negotiations, spaces that allow IPLCs more significant room for maneuver – namely the presentations in plenary sessions and side
events – but which are marginal with respect to the negotiations underway.
Foregrounding ontologies alternative to naturalism thus depends on a political
statement at the margins of negotiations: such statements aim to underscore the
specific characteristics of IPLCs and to have the legitimacy of their claims recognized. This ontological diplomacy is linked to a process of symbolic recognition, which consists of “performing” the idea that IPLCs exist as a collective
and that the nature regime proper to them is non-naturalist/organic. The identity mobilized in this way is close to the image of the ecological native, which
allows for the establishment of certain strategic alliances, but has its limits. The
strategy depends, therefore, upon a politics of nature.
In the context of negotiations, IPLCs position themselves differently. The
nature regime upon which their standpoints is apparently aligned with the naturalist or capitalist type. The opposition between nature and culture is accepted,
and it is on this basis that negotiations are carried out. In view of the importance
that the texts give to traditional knowledge linked to genetic resources, a focus
on culture is indispensable. It is regarding this point in particular that various
strategic alliances may be worked out and that synergies may develop between
participants, between institutions, and between legal texts. Thus, in 2019, the
Secretariat of the CBD (in particular the “people and biodiversity” unit), together
with the IUCN, foregrounded the importance of UNESCO and the creation of
a Nature-Culture Alliance was announced. Even if the naturalist nature regime
still predominates, a process of reflection on the link between nature and culture,
led by various institutions and based upon an alliance with IPLCs, is flourishing.
The various participants involved do not necessarily share the same viewpoints,
but by working together they contribute to transforming the standpoints of their
institutions. In this way, the holistic approach, understood in ecosystemic terms,
tends now to recognize that the naturalist/capitalist nature regime should be
challenged. This ambiguity allows the IPLCs who interest us here to practice a
more discrete ontological diplomacy than beforehand. This diplomacy is pragmatic, it is carried out on moving ground, and it rests upon alliances that seem
promising. At first sights, it rests on cultural politics, but it is more complex.
In this context, accepting the naturalist nature regime allows IPLCs, in my
view, to “control” the deep misunderstandings that would arise from taking
account of ontological differences, to take up the terminology proposed by
Viveiros de Castro (i.e. controlled equivocation (2004)), and to place themselves
in a framework shared by other participants.
Mother Earth – tends to personify this approach. This display of u niqueness
comes at a price; the IPLCs bring along diverse concepts that tend to be assimilated to each other. It seems, therefore, as if all IPLCs attribute a central position to Mother Earth, which is not the case. Yet, this kind of politics has an
essential symbolic reach by allowing the IPLCs to position themselves as a relatively homogenous group. This message is invoked in the spaces for expression
situated at the margins of negotiations, spaces that allow IPLCs more significant room for maneuver – namely the presentations in plenary sessions and side
events – but which are marginal with respect to the negotiations underway.
Foregrounding ontologies alternative to naturalism thus depends on a political
statement at the margins of negotiations: such statements aim to underscore the
specific characteristics of IPLCs and to have the legitimacy of their claims recognized. This ontological diplomacy is linked to a process of symbolic recognition, which consists of “performing” the idea that IPLCs exist as a collective
and that the nature regime proper to them is non-naturalist/organic. The identity mobilized in this way is close to the image of the ecological native, which
allows for the establishment of certain strategic alliances, but has its limits. The
strategy depends, therefore, upon a politics of nature.
In the context of negotiations, IPLCs position themselves differently. The
nature regime upon which their standpoints is apparently aligned with the naturalist or capitalist type. The opposition between nature and culture is accepted,
and it is on this basis that negotiations are carried out. In view of the importance
that the texts give to traditional knowledge linked to genetic resources, a focus
on culture is indispensable. It is regarding this point in particular that various
strategic alliances may be worked out and that synergies may develop between
participants, between institutions, and between legal texts. Thus, in 2019, the
Secretariat of the CBD (in particular the “people and biodiversity” unit), together
with the IUCN, foregrounded the importance of UNESCO and the creation of
a Nature-Culture Alliance was announced. Even if the naturalist nature regime
still predominates, a process of reflection on the link between nature and culture,
led by various institutions and based upon an alliance with IPLCs, is flourishing.
The various participants involved do not necessarily share the same viewpoints,
but by working together they contribute to transforming the standpoints of their
institutions. In this way, the holistic approach, understood in ecosystemic terms,
tends now to recognize that the naturalist/capitalist nature regime should be
challenged. This ambiguity allows the IPLCs who interest us here to practice a
more discrete ontological diplomacy than beforehand. This diplomacy is pragmatic, it is carried out on moving ground, and it rests upon alliances that seem
promising. At first sights, it rests on cultural politics, but it is more complex.
In this context, accepting the naturalist nature regime allows IPLCs, in my
view, to “control” the deep misunderstandings that would arise from taking
account of ontological differences, to take up the terminology proposed by
Viveiros de Castro (i.e. controlled equivocation (2004)), and to place themselves
in a framework shared by other participants.