{"id":35,"date":"2024-11-13T20:29:08","date_gmt":"2024-11-13T20:29:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/ant252-f24\/?page_id=35"},"modified":"2024-12-13T20:22:28","modified_gmt":"2024-12-13T20:22:28","slug":"project-13","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/ant252-f24\/projects\/project-13\/","title":{"rendered":"Ariel"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cIn the enactive approach, we are always immersed in a network of interactions that are at every instant the result of our biological and cultural histories. We necessarily co-create the world with others (humans and nonhumans) with whom we live in co-existence.\u201c \u2014 Arturo Escobar (p. 83)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

A diagram representing the forces of the universe in Andean cosmology (Baumann 1994).<\/span><\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/h2>\n

In my final project, I dive into the Indigenous infrastructure of nature conservation in Llanthupi Munakuy<\/em>, Sweetgrass<\/em>, and\u00a0Disappearing World: The Kayapo<\/em> in conversation with Elena Gan’s article “Diagramming Multispecies Relations”, Claire Molloy’s \u201cNature Writes the Screenplays, Commercial Wildlife Films and Ecological Entertainment,\u201d and Anne Spice’s “Invasive Infrastructure,” I look at how the representation of multispecies ethnography in films is part of a larger movement to indigenize conservation and shed light on how this reveals the innate relationality between humans and nature and unsettles the notion of humans’ independence in Western ontology.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/h2>\n

From a fictional film Llanthupi Munakuy<\/em> created by an Indigenous Bolivian film producer, to Disappearing World: The Kayapo, Indian of the Brazilian Rain Forest<\/em> that describes Indigenous representation in land ownership, to Sweetgrass<\/em>, a film that calls to multispecies relationalities, critical Indigenous infrastructures consider our relationality with nature that Western ontology often excludes, and calls to a model of \u201cradical\u201d nature conservation.<\/p>\n

By infrastructure, I refer to Brian Ortiz’s widely-cited definition, “infrastructures are material forms that allow for the possibility of exchange over space” (p. 1). As network of connectivity, they are structures of relationality in themselves; manifested in a physical form, infrastructures are both the physical extension and imagination from the ontological systems of different societies, and at the same time, the limiting structures that connects, separates, and defines life. Bringing infrastructure into the discussion, I will discuss the \u201cindigenous infrastructure\u201d based on nature as described by Anne Spice and the \u201cinvasive Infrastructure\u201d particularly as a product of Western ontology. These physical structures bring out the invisibility of infrastructures, such as infrastructure of nature incorporated into the cultural system, or societal infrastructures that become internalized into the structures of rituals. The conscious enactment of reality through the three films made these infrastructures visible, which reveals a rethinking of human-nature relations that would define new models of nature conservation.<\/p>\n

Llanthupi Munakuy (Loving Each Other in the Shadows)<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Marcelina C\u00e1rdenas\u2019s movie Llanthupi Munakuy appropriates a traditional, almost clich\u00e9 love tragedy and situated it in the indigenous infrastructure that is guided by an interaction with the natural elements. The film is about the love story of a young couple, Juancito and Rosita, who fell in love despite their family’s disapproval, eventually leading to Rosita’s death and Juancito’s symbolic release of her soul (ajayu\/alma).<\/p>\n

This film is an excellent example of an Indigenous multispecies perspective. The film reconsiders “life” by involving not only animate but also inanimate ones. At the end of the film, the yatiri<\/em> gives Juancito a comb to convert into a forest and a mirror that turns into a lake. The objects form\u00a0 seamlessly becomes the other, which makes visible the innate relations between objects, refuting the conceptualization of a rational reality in Western ontology where objects are discrete and independent. Furthermore, both inanimate objects turns into “forces” that generates critical plot turns. As Kim Tallbear quotes Charles Eastman in The Soul of the Indian<\/em>, “…the spirit pervades all creation and that every creature possesses a soul in some degree” (2011).\u00a0 The relationship between these objects and the two main characters are constantly varying too: the comb and mirror are no longer objects in Juancito’s hands, but places that situates both characters. This is illustrates the changing relationality of non-human beings with humans, and shows how inanimate and animate forces co-participates in the creation of reality. Therefore, an understanding of multispecies relationality (“multispecies” in Eastman’s definition) is built into the film, which make visible how nature and culture are co-situated.<\/p>\n

\"\" \"\"<\/p>\n

Screenshots from\u00a0Llanthupi Munakuy<\/em>: the comb becoming a forest and the mirror becoming a lake<\/span><\/p>\n

Secondly, the film is structured by natural forces and rituals related to nature, reflecting an Indigenous infrastructure in which the network connected by nature. Referring to the diagram I made in week 6, time doesn’t flow in a strictly chronological manner in the film. There are three cycles of time: 1) a constant shift between day and night, particularly attenuated by the constant reappearance of the moon to signify another day, 2) the wax and wane of the moon signifies the longer arc of month, and 3) references to dreams of the lake that disrupts the chronological flow by “recalling” events from the future. Thus, changing time defies the notion of nature as “outside” of human existence, and situates time as part of a continuous enactment of reality. Furthermore, the emphasis of time as correlated with natural elements, namely the moon and the lake, relates to Spice’s idea of indigenous infrastructure with organic interaction with nature.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The structure of Llanthupi Munakuy<\/i> as shown in Premier Pro: red dots represent landscape scenes showing sunset or sunrise, orange dots denote the appearance of moon, and the three white dots show flashbacks to the lake (two of them shown in the panel above).<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the rituals are infrastructure of nature. The film begins with an agricultural celebration, a moment where masculine and feminine energy from the two halves of the year meet and the boundary of the underworld (uku pacha) and middle world (kai pacha) meets as plants sprout from underground up. These ritualistic significance based on agricultural practices are enacted when the main characters (masculine and feminine) meets in the ritual and their parting defies the boundary of life and death. The overarching symbolism of the agricultural festival is a conscious performance of nature, which emphasizes an Indigenous infrastructure based on the creative interpretation of nature.<\/p>\n

These structures are explained in the Chakana, a diagram representation of Andean cosmovision. Overall, it is structured based on the yearly agricultural cycle, where the dates on the outer blue rim of the circle represents days of cultivation and harvest. However, the time also operates on multiple scales: the calendar dates (outer blue circle), the time of the day (the left half: sun; the right half: moon), and the passing of spontaneous and intermittent natural events, such as rain and lighting.<\/p>\n

The chakana is an alternative way of thinking about diagrams, as argued by Elaine Gan in \u201cDiagrams: Making Multispecies Temporalities Visible.\u201d It shows the existence of distinct temporalities on the same plane. There are no one-direction relationship; temporalities are situated one over the other (the blue circle outside of the chakana shape, outside of the particular elements.) The coexistence of three scales of time correspond to the analysis of Llanthupi Munakuy’<\/em>s timeline, and the agricultural importance also calls to the agricultural ceremony in the film. These relationalities shows how nature creates the infrastructure of life, but not as an “outside” structure. Instead, both non-living organisms and temporal patterns constantly transforms to interact with human subjects in various ways, creating Llanthupi Munakuy<\/em>‘s plot and participating in a enactment of reality.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The chakana diagram (Chamanismo \/ Chamanes Espa\u00f1a).<\/span><\/p>\n

By making visible an Indigenous infrastructure that is based on natural cycles in different temporalities, Llanthupi Munakuy\u00a0<\/em>calls to a remodeling of how we think of nature.\u00a0 Like what Anne Spice quotes Freda Huson, a spokersperson for the indigenous tribe Unist’ot’en: “the whole cycle and system is our critical infrastructure, and that\u2019s what we\u2019re trying to protect, an infrastructure that we depend on.” (p. 41) Connecting to Escobar’s article, instead of the Northern or European way that “the world carries on by itself. People don\u2019t perform it. It\u2019s outside us and we are contained by it,” the film shows how nature creates a structure for life yet is enacted by a constant interaction with it and performance of nature – reiterating that infrastructures are networks of connectivity (p. 86).<\/p>\n

Sweetgrass<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Sweetgrass\u00a0<\/em>by Lucien Castaing-Taylor is a documentary film on two modern shepards as they travel across Sweetgrass, Montana. By focusing the film not on humans, nor the sheep, but rather a conscious portrayal of relationships between the landscape, humans, and sheep, the film respects plurality and complexity of multispecies relationality.<\/p>\n

The film begins with a long shot of a sheep chewing then slowly turning to look at the audience. This establishes a looking relationship between the audience (humans) and the animal, creating from the first moment a relationship of mutual curiosity and observation. The film focuses on instances of human-sheep relationality: the shepards establishing an almost paternal and nurturing relationship with the sheep as they aid in sheep birth and shearing them. However, the relationship changes in the wilderness, as the shepard becomes harsh to the sheep (for instance, calling them “bitches” and both yield to the natural forces as the shepard makes a long phone call with his mom to complain about how him and all animals are tired out.<\/p>\n

The sounds of the film further supports this idea. while the sheep is far from the scene in a landscape panorama view, their vocalization and bells are loud and intimate to the audience, showing how humans and animals are not just situated\u00a0<\/em>inside the landscape but co-constituted.<\/p>\n