How dogs dream: Amazonian natures and the politics of transspecies engagement

22 Pages·2007·4.82 MB·English

EDUARDO KOHN
Cornell University
How dogs dream:
Amazonian natures and the politics of transspecies
engagement
A B S T R A C T One morning, the three dogs belonging to Hilario’s family, with
Undertherubricofan“anthropologyoflife,”Icall whomIwaslivinginA´vila,avillageofQuichua-speakingRuna
forexpandingthereachofethnographybeyondthe in Ecuador’s Upper Amazon, disappeared.1 After searching the
boundariesofthehuman.Drawingonresearch nearby fallows and forests where they were last heard barking,
amongtheUpperAmazonianRunaandfocusing,for wefinallyfoundthem.Thelargetracksleadingtothebodiesand
heuristicpurposes,onaparticularethnological thetelltalebitemarksonthebacksofeachoftheirheadsconfirmedour
conundrumconcerninghowtointerpretthedreams fears—theyhadbeenkilledbyajaguar.
dogshave,Iexaminetherelationships,both That afternoon, back at the house, Ame´riga, Hilario’s wife, wondered
intimateandfraught,thattheRunahavewithother aloud why the dogs were unable to augur their own deaths and, by ex-
lifeforms.Analyticalframeworksthatfashiontheir tension,whyshe,theirmaster,wascaughtunawareofthefatethatwould
toolsfromwhatisuniquetohumans(language, befallthem:“WhileIwasbythefire,theydidn’tdream,”shesaid.“Theyjust
culture,society,andhistory)or,alternatively,what slept,thosedogs,andthey’reusuallyrealdreamers.Normallywhilesleep-
humansarecommonlysupposedtosharewith ingbythefirethey’llbark‘huahuahua.’”Dogs,Ilearned,dream,and,by
animalsareinadequatetothistask.Bycontrast,I observingthemastheydream,peoplecanknowwhattheirdreamsmean.If,
turntoanembodiedandemergentistunderstanding asAme´rigaimitated,thedogshadbarked“huahua”intheirsleep,itwould
ofsemiosis—onethattreatssignprocessesas haveindicatedthattheyweredreamingofchasinganimals,andtheywould,
inherenttolifeandnotjustrestrictedto therefore,havedonethesameintheforestthefollowingday,forthisishow
humans—aswellastoanappreciationfor adogbarkswhenpursuinggame.If,bycontrast,theyhadbarked“cuai”
Amazonianpreoccupationswithinhabitingthe thatnight,itwouldhavebeenasuresignalthatajaguarwouldkillthem
pointsofviewofnonhumanselves,tomove thefollowingday,forthisishowdogscryoutwhenattackedbyfelines(see
anthropologybeyond“thehuman,”bothasanalytic Figure1).
andasboundedobjectofstudy.[anthropologyof Thatnight,however,thedogsdidnotbarkatall,andtherefore,muchto
life,human–animalrelations,nonhumanselves, theconsternationoftheirmasters,theyfailedtoforetelltheirowndeaths.
Amazonia,semiotics,perspectivism,multinaturalism] AsDeliaproclaimed,“Therefore,theyshouldn’thavedied.”Therealization
thatthesystemofdreaminterpretationthatpeopleusetounderstandtheir
dogshadfailedprovokedanepistemologicalcrisisofsorts;thewomenbe-
gantoquestionwhethertheycouldeverknowanything.Ame´riga,visibly
frustrated,asked,“So,howcanweeverknow?”Everyonelaughedsomewhat
uneasilyasLuisareflected,“Howisitknowable?Now,evenwhenpeopleare
gonnadie,wewon’tbeabletoknow.”Ame´rigaconcludedsimply,“Itwasn’t
meanttobeknown.”
AMERICANETHNOLOGIST,Vol.34,No.1,pp.3–24,ISSN0094-0496,online
ISSN1548-1425.(cid:2)C 2007bytheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.Allrightsreserved.
Pleasedirectallrequestsforpermissiontophotocopyorreproducearticlecontent
throughtheUniversityofCaliforniaPress’sRightsandPermissionswebsite,
http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp.DOI:10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.3.
AmericanEthnologist (cid:2) Volume34 Number1 February2007
Toward an anthropology of life dayinteractionswiththesecreaturesandthenewspacesof
possibilitysuchinteractionscancreate.2
Thisarticleisabouttheconsiderablechallengesinvolvedin ForAme´riga,andfortheA´vilaRuna,moregenerally,the
knowingandinteractingwithotherspeciesandtheimpli- dreams,intentions,andmotivationsofdogsare,inprinci-
cationsthishasforthepracticeofanthropology.Itisastep pleatleast,knowable.Thisisbecause,accordingtothem,
towarddevelopingananthropologythatisnotjustconfined allbeings,andnotjusthumans,engagewiththeworldand
tothehumanbutisconcernedwiththeeffectsofour“entan- with each other as selves—that is, as beings that have a
glements”(Raffles2002)withotherkindsoflivingselves.Fol- pointofview.Runawaysofknowingothers,then,arepred-
lowingDonnaHaraway,Iholdthatdogsare“notherejustto icatedonwhatIcallan“ecologyofselves.”Inthisregard,
thinkwith”;rather,they“areheretolivewith”(2003:5).And, theysharesomethingincommonwithJakobvonUexku¨ll
withher,Ialsoholdthattheproblemofhowtounderstand (1982), an early 20th-century pioneer in the study of ani-
dogsand,especially,howtolivewiththem—andhowdogs, malethology.VonUexku¨llinsistedthatecologicalrelations
inturn,cometounderstandandlivewithpeople—callsfor arenottheproductofmechanicalcause-and-effectinterac-
ananalyticalframeworkthatgoesbeyondafocusonhow tionsamongorganismsasobjects.Rather,theyaretheprod-
humansrepresentanimalstoanappreciationforourevery- uctoftheinteractionofthephenomenalworlds—whathe
Figure1. Pucan˜a,oneofthethreedogskilled,withAme´riga’sdaughterFabiolaandgrandsonLenin.PhotobyE.Kohn.
4
Howdogsdream (cid:2) AmericanEthnologist
called“umwelt”—thatareparticulartotheperceptualand too,havebodies.Whatisneededisarepresentationalsystem
bodilydispositions,motivations,andintentionsofdifferent thatregroundssemiosisinawaythatgetsbeyondthesesorts
kindsofbeings.3Thedistinction,then,isnotbetweenanob- ofdualismsandthemixturesthatoftenserveastheirreso-
jectiveworld,devoidofintrinsicsignificance,andhumans lutions.AsIhavearguedelsewhere(Kohn2005),semiosisis
who,asbearersofculture,areinauniquepositiontogive alwaysembodiedinsomewayoranother,anditisalways
meaningtoit(Sahlins1976:12).Rather,asTerrenceDeacon entangled,toagreaterorlesserdegree,withmaterialpro-
(2003a)hasargued,“aboutness”—representation,intention, cesses.Theuseofahyphen—forexample,Haraway’s“fleshly
andpurposeintheirmostbasicforms—emergeswherever material-semioticpresences”(2003:5)orLatour’s(1993:106)
thereislife;thebiologicalworldisconstitutedbytheways “natures-cultures”—althoughcurrentlyanecessarystrategy,
inwhichmyriadbeings—humanandnonhuman—perceive could lead one to think that there is a semiosis devoid of
andrepresenttheirsurroundings.Significance,then,isnot materiality.4
theexclusiveprovinceofhumans. Associaltheorists,weinheritapervasive(butusually
Ananthropologythatwouldtakethisinsightseriously implicit)linguocentricrepresentationalframeworkthatof-
would,perhaps,nolongerbetheanthropologywecurrently tenreproducesadualisticdivisionbetweenthematerialand
know.Socioculturalanthropology,aspracticedtoday,takes themeaningfulevenwhenitseekstoovercomeit.Thehy-
thoseattributesthataredistinctivetohumans—language, phen,asasolutiontotheproblemsraisedbythisframework,
culture,society,andhistory—andusesthemtofashionthe ofcourse,isaplaceholder,anditpointstoveryrealconnec-
toolstounderstandhumans.Inthisprocess,theanalytical tionsofwhichweneedtobeaware.Tothisend,mygoal,in
objectbecomesisomorphicwiththeanalytics.Asaresult,we thelargerprojectofwhichthisarticleisapart,istofollow
arenotabletoseethemanywaysinwhichpeopleare,infact, ethnographicallythehuman–animalinteractionsthattake
connectedtoabroaderworldoflifeandthewaysinwhich placearoundoneparticularvillageintheEcuadorianUp-
thischangeswhatitmightmeantobehuman.Mineisnot perAmazonandtothinkaboutthemintermsofasemiotic
acallforsociobiologicalreductionism.Rather,itisacallfor frameworkthatgoesbeyondthehuman,inanefforttode-
expandingthereachofethnography.Anethnographicfocus velopanapproachthatmightallowustobetteraccountfor
notjustonhumansoronlyonanimalsbutonhowhumans theworkthatgoesoninthespacethatthehyphenseeksto
and animals interact explodes this closed self-referential bridge.
circuit. To do so, I draw on the nondualistic representational
Atstakeishowtothinkabout“nonhumans”—anana- systemdevelopedbythe19th-centuryphilosopherCharles
lyticalcategorythatBrunoLatour(1993,2004)proposedto Peirce (1931–35; see Kohn 2005).5 This system recognizes
movetheethnographicstudyofscience-makingpractices thecentralimportancetohumanformsofreferenceofthose
beyondsocialconstructivistframeworksinwhichhumans signsknownassymbols,whichreferbymeansofconvention
aretheonlyactors.ThedistinctionLatourmakesbetween (e.g.,theworddog).Italsorecognizes,however,howsym-
humans and nonhumans, however, fails to recognize that bolicreferenceisactuallyconstructedoutofmorebasicnon-
somenonhumansareselves.Assuch,theyarenotjustrep- symbolicsignprocesses,whicharenotuniquetohumans,
resented(Latour1993)buttheyalsorepresent.Andtheycan aswellashowsymbolicreferenceisalsoinconstantinterac-
do so without having to “speak.” Neither do they need a tionwiththesemorefundamentalmodesofreference(see
“spokesperson” (Latour 2004:62–70) because, as I demon- Deacon1997:69–101).6 Thesemorebasicsignprocesses—
strate in the following discussion, representation exceeds thosethatinvolvesignsknownasicons(e.g.,aphotographor
thesymbolic,andit,therefore,exceedshumanspeech.Al- thecrypticcolorationofalizard’sskin),whichembodylike-
thoughwehumanscertainlyrepresentnonhumananimals nesses,andthosethatPeircelabels“indices”(e.g.,awind-
inavarietyofculturally,historically,andlinguisticallydis- sockoramonkey’salarmcall),whichareimpactedbytheob-
tinctways,andthissurelyhasitseffects,bothforusandfor jectstheyrepresent—aremoresusceptibletothequalities,
thoseanimalswerepresent,wealsoliveinworldsinwhich events,andpatternsoftheworldthanissymbolicreference,
howotherselvesrepresentuscancometomattervitally.Ac- whosemodeofrepresentationismoreindirect.7
cordingly,myconcerninthisarticleiswithexploringinter- Althoughsymbolsandsignsareoftenconflatedinso-
actions,notwithnonhumansgenerically—thatis,treating cialtheory,thesystemIusetreatssymbolsasjustonekindof
objects,artifacts,andlivesasequivalententities—butwith sign.ThismeansthatwhenItalkaboutsignsandsemiosis,
nonhumananimalsintermsofthosedistinctivecharacter- Iamreferringtoarangeofreferentialstrategiesthatmay
isticsthatmakethemselves. includeicons,indices,orsymbols.Symbolicreferenceisa
In understanding nonhuman selves and how we can distinctlyhumanformofrepresentationthatisembedded
interactwiththem,thechoiceisnotbetween(animal)bod- inmorefundamentalandpervasivemodesofrepresenta-
iesand(human)meanings.Norcanwesimplyresolvethe tion,whicharebasedoniconicandindexicalmodesofrefer-
problembycombiningbodiesandmeanings,orbyattribut- ence.Thesemorebasicmodesareintrinsictothebiological
ingmeaningtoanimals,orevenbyrecognizingthathumans, world.Eventhesimplestorganismsareinherentlysemiotic
5
AmericanEthnologist (cid:2) Volume34 Number1 February2007
(Hoffmeyer1996).Forexample,theciliaofasingle-celled The semiosis of the nonhuman biotic world is iconic
parameciumfunctionasanadaptationthatfacilitatesthe and indexical. That of the human world, by contrast, is
organism’smovementthroughaliquidmedium.Theirspe- iconic, indexical, and symbolic. Symbolic reference is an
cific organization, size, shape, flexibility, and capacity for “emergent” phenomenon (sensu stricto Deacon 2003a) in
movement capture certain features of the environment— thatitgrowsoutofmorefundamentaliconicandindexical
namely,theresistanceaffordedbythecharacteristicsofthe modesofreference.8Wehumans,however,donotjustuse
particularfluidmediuminquestion,againstwhichtheor- symbolicreference.Wealsopartakeiniconicandindexical
ganism can propel itself. This adaptation is an embodied reference.9 By virtue of this shared substrate, a continuity
signvehicletotheextentthatitisinterpretedbythesub- existsbetweenhumanandnonhumanmodesofrepresen-
sequent generation with respect to what this sign vehicle tation,andwecanrecognizethiswithoutlosingsightofthe
is about—the relevant characteristics of the environment. distinctivecharacteristicsthatdifferentsemioticmodalities
Thisinterpretation,inturn,becomesmanifestinthedevel- have.10
opmentofasubsequentorganism’sbodyinawaythatin- Insteadofanthropology,then,Iproposeananthropol-
corporatesthisadaptation.Thisbody(withitsadaptation) ogyoflife.11Thatis,Iwishtoencouragethepracticeofakind
functionsasanewsignrepresentingthesefeaturesoftheen- ofanthropologythatsituatesall-too-humanworldswithin
vironment,insofarasit,inturn,willbeinterpretedassuch alargerseriesofprocessesandrelationshipsthatexceedthe
byasubsequentgenerationintheeventualconstructionof human,andIfeelthatthiscanbedoneinawaythatisan-
thatgeneration’sbody.Becauselineagesoforganismswhose alyticallyprecise.Thismatters,notjustforthoseofuswho
cilialessaccuratelycapturerelevantenvironmentalfeatures happentocareaboutnonhumananimalsorabouthuman–
donotsurviveaswell,thelineagesthatdopersistcometoex- animalinteractionsinandofthemselves—certainlyimpor-
hibitcomparativelyincreasing“fittedness”(Deacon2006)to tantpursuits.Neitherisitonlyimportantforthoseofuswho
thisenvironment;theyaremoreexhaustiverepresentations wishtounderstandenvironmentalcrises—unquestionably
ofit. anecessarypursuitandonethat,asLatour(1993,2004)has
Life, then, is a sign process. Any dynamic in which so convincingly argued, cannot be addressed from within
“something...standstosomebody,forsomethinginsome thesortsofanalyticalframeworksthatweinheritfromthe
respect or capacity” (CP 2.228), as Peirce’s definition of a humanitiesandsciences,withtheirmeticulousseparation
signhasit,wouldbealive.Ciliastandtoafutureorganism(a ofhumanfromnonhuman.Butthisrethinkingalsomatters,
somebody)forthosecharacteristicsofaliquidenvironment Imaintain,forsocialtheory,morebroadly.Ananthropology
thatcanberesistedinaparticularwaytofacilitatemove- oflifequestionstheprivilegedontologicalstatusofhumans
ment. A “somebody”—or a “self,” as I call it—therefore, is asknowers.Inshort,itforcesustoconsiderthatperhaps“we
notnecessarilyhuman(seeColapietro1989:5).Anditneed haveneverbeenhuman”—asHaraway(2004:2),inatwiston
notinvolvesymbolicreferenceortheawarenessoftenas- Latour’sfamoustitle,hassuggested.
sociatedwithrepresentationforittoqualifyasaself.Self Yetananthropologyofliferecognizesthatlifeismore
is both the locus and the product of this process of inter- thanbiologyascurrentlyenvisioned.Notonlybecausebi-
pretation.Suchaselfdoesnotstandoutsidethisembodied ologyiseverywheresemioticbutalsobecausedistinctively
dynamic as “nature,” evolution, watchmaker, homuncular humancapacities,propensities,techniques,practices,and
vitalspirit,or(human)observer.Rather,itemergeswithin historiesreconfigurelifeinnewways.Amazonianstrategies
thisdynamicastheoutcomeofanembodiedprocessthat forcapturingfelinedispositions,enablingpeopletobecome
producesanewsign,whichinterpretsapriorone.Forthis shape-shifting were-jaguars, and technoscientific pursuits
reason,itisappropriatetoconsidernonhumanorganisms such as the recent development of immunosuppressants
asselvesandbioticlifeasasignprocess,albeitonethatis thathaverenderedlargepopulationspotentially“bioavail-
oftenhighlyembodiedandnonsymbolic. able”forthetrafficandtransplantationoforgansfromone
Seen in this light, attempts to theorize links between bodytoanotheracrossvastsocial,spatial,andphylogenetic
the material and the semiotic via hyphens (although cur- distances(Cohen2005)change,forbetterorforworse,what
rentlynecessary)canbemisleadingbecausetheymighten- itmeanstobealive.
courageustoassumearelationshipamongequivalentpoles Ifourconcernasanthropologistsiswithwhatitmeans
thatobscuresthehierarchicalandnesteddynamicbywhich tobehumaninallofitscontingentcomplexitythen,Iargue,
semiosisemergesfrom,andcontinuestobeentangledwith, weneedtolooktoacontextbeyondtheuniquelyhuman
materialandenergeticprocesses.Thisdynamicislifeitself. tounderstandthis.Thatrelevantcontextislife12—alifethat
Theoriginoflife—anykindoflifeanywhereintheuniverse— ismorethanbodies,andalifethatisalsochangedbythe
necessarilymarkstheoriginofsemiosisaswell.Insum,any distinctivewaysinwhichwehumansliveit.Intheinterest
entitythatstandsasalocusof“aboutness”withinalineage ofbeginningtoimaginewhatsuchananthropologybeyond
ofsuchlocipotentiallyextendingintothefuturecanbesaid thehumanmightlooklike,Iofferthisdiscussionasaninitial
tobealive. exploration.
6
Howdogsdream (cid:2) AmericanEthnologist
Points of view Totakeanexamplecentraltothisdiscussion,intheirmu-
tual attempts to live together and make sense of each
Iflifeis,indeed,semioticandifbioticinteractionsarebased other, dogs and people increasingly come to partake in a
onthewaysinwhichdifferentkindsofselvesrepresenteach sharedconstellationofattributesanddispositions—asort
other,thenonewaytostudythisecologyofselvesistode- ofsharedtransspecieshabitus.Suchbecomingscutacross
scribetheinterpenetratingwebsthatconnect,sustain,and nature–culture distinctions; the hierarchical relation that
create beings in terms of their sign-related qualities.13 As unites Runa masters and their dogs is based as much on
peoplewhoareintimatelyengagedwiththebeingsofthe the ways in which humans have been able to harness ca-
forestthroughhunting,fishing,trapping,andgathering,the nineformsofsocialorganizationasitisonthelegaciesof
Runacannotbuttreatthesebeingsquaselves,and,asIin- a colonial history in the Upper Amazon that have linked
dicate below, they are, on some occasions, even forced to the A´vila Runa to the white–mestizo world beyond their
engagewiththeseselvesintermsoftheirconstitutivesemi- village.
oticproperties.
The challenge for the Runa, then, is to enter this
A conundrum
transspecies ecology of selves that constitutes the forest
ecosystem.LikemanyAmazonians,theydosothroughwhat Entertaining the viewpoints of other beings is dangerous
EduardoViveirosdeCastro(1998,2004)hascalled“perspec- business. In their attempts to do so, the Runa do not, for
tivalmultinaturalism.”Thiswayofunderstandingrelations example, want to become dogs. That is, transspecies in-
allows people to account for the distinctive qualities that tersubjectivityentailssomedegreeofbecomingother,and
characterizedifferentkindsofbeingsandtoestablishcom- thiscarriesrisks.Tomitigatethesedangers,theRunamake
municationwiththemdespitethesedifferences.Itinvolves strategicuseofdifferentcommunicativestrategies.Accord-
twointerlockingassumptions.First,allsentientbeings,be ingly,animportantgoalofthisarticleistotracetheroleof
they spirit, animal, or human, see themselves as persons. thesestrategieswithinthecontextoftransspecificcommu-
Thatis,theirsubjectiveworldviewisidenticaltothewaythe nication,ecologicalnetworks,andbecomings.Todothis,I
Runaseethemselves.Second,althoughallbeingsseethem- havechosen,asaheuristicdevicetofocusmyinquiry,the
selvesaspersons,thewaysinwhichtheyareseenbyother following small, but nevertheless vexing, ethnological co-
beingsdependontheontologicalmakeupofbothobserver nundrum:WhydotheRunainterpretdogdreamsliterally
andobserved.Forexample,peopleinA´vilasaythatwhatwe (e.g.,whenadogbarksinitssleep,thisisanomenthatit
humansperceiveasthestenchofrottingcarrion,avulture willbarkinidenticalfashionthefollowingdayintheforest),
experiences as the sweet-smelling vapor emanating from whereas,forthemostpart,theyinterprettheirowndreams
a boiling pot of manioc tubers. Vultures, because of their metaphorically (e.g., if a man dreams of killing a chicken,
species-specificdispositions,inhabitadifferentworldfrom hewillkillagamebirdintheforestthefollowingday)?Un-
thatoftheRuna.Yet,becausetheirsubjectivepointofviewis derstanding why this difference in modes of dream inter-
thatofpersons,theyseethisdifferentworldinthesameway pretationexistscanhelpelucidatethechallengesofmoving
theRunaseetheirownworld(ViveirosdeCastro1998:478). acrossthosesemipermeablemembranesthatconstitutethe
Therearemanynatures,eachassociatedwiththeinterpre- bordersalongshiftingontologicalfrontiers.
tiveworld—theumwelt—ofaparticularkindofbeing;there As Ame´riga’s comments above revealed, how dogs
isonlyoneculture—thatoftheRuna.Accordingly,Viveiros dreammattersdeeply.Itmattersnotonlybecauseofthepur-
deCastro(1998:478)referstothiswayofthinkingas“multi- portedpredictivepowerofdreamsbutalsobecauseimagin-
naturalism”andcomparesittothemulticulturallogic(i.e., ingthatthemotivationsandinnerlivesofdogsareunknow-
manycultures,onenature)typicalofcontemporaryEuro- ablethrowsintoquestionwhetheritiseverpossibletohave
Americanfolk-academicthought,especiallyintheguiseof suchknowledgeofanykindofself.Thisisuntenable.The
culturalrelativism.14Theupshotofperspectivalmultinatu- beliefthatwecanknowtheintentions,goals,anddesiresof
ralismisthatitpermitscommensurabilityamongdisparate otherselvesallowsustoactinthisworld.Toshowwhydog
beings.Becauseallcreaturespossessahumansubjectivity, dreamsmatter,Ifirstexaminehowtransspeciesintersubjec-
transspecificcommunicationispossibledespitethemani- tivecontactinvolvesontologicalblurring.Ithenexplorethe
festexistenceofphysicaldiscontinuitiesthatseparatekinds dangersinvolvedinfailingtorecognizethoseotherselves
ofbeings. thatpeopletheworld.Thereafter,Iturntoanexamination
Oneoftheimplicationsofadoptingtheviewpointsof ofdog–humanbecomings.Finally,Iexaminehowdifferent
otherkindsofbeingsisthatknowingothersrequiresinhab- communicative modes are used to protect people against
itingtheirdifferentumwelts.Whenonedoesso,attributes thedangersthatemergewhenontologicalboundariesbe-
anddispositionsbecomedislodgedfromthebodiesthatpro- comeexcessivelyblurred.Isituatethisexaminationwithin
duce them and ontological boundaries become blurred. I adiscussionofthewaysinwhichthetransspeciessemio-
callthistransformativeprocessofblurringa“becoming.”15 sis that emerges in human–animal interactions exhibits
7
AmericanEthnologist (cid:2) Volume34 Number1 February2007
Figure2. Venturawithanagoutibileduct,whosecontentshewilladministertohisdog.PhotobyE.Kohn.
characteristicsthatgobeyondwhatwewouldtraditionally ple,alerttheRunatothepresenceofvisitorsordangerous
identifyashumanformsofrepresentation. animalssuchaspoisonoussnakes.
Because the soul, as hypostasized intersubjective ca-
pacity,islocatedinspecificpartsofthebody,itisalsotrans-
An ecology of selves
ferableviatheingestionoftheseparts.Dogsaredefinedas
TheRunaseesubjectivity—humanandotherwise—ascon- conscious, soul-possessing beings because of their ability
stituted via contact with other sentient beings. The soul, todetectprey,suchastheagouti.Theycanincreasetheir
theyhold,iswhatmakessuchtransspeciesintersubjectivity consciousness—as measured by their increased ability to
possible.16Animalsare“conscious”ofotherkindsofbeings detect prey—by ingesting the very organs that permit the
and,therefore,theyareconsideredtohavesouls.17 Forex- agoutitodetectthepresenceofdogs.Forthisreason,the
ample,theagouti(akindoflargeedibleforestrodent)and A´vilaRunaoftenfeedtheagouti’sbileorsternumtotheir
thedogbothpossesssoulsbecauseoftheirabilitiesto“be- dogs(seeFigure2).
comeawareof”thosebeingsthatstandinrelationtothem Followingthesamelogic,theA´vilaRunaincreasetheir
aspredatororprey.18 Theagoutiisabletodetectthepres- ownconsciousnessofotherbeingsbyingestinganimalbody
enceofitscaninepredator,and,therefore,ithasasoul.This parts.Becausebezoarstonesareconsideredthesourceof
capacityhasaphysicallocationinthebody.Theagouti’sbile adeer’sawarenessofpredators,hunterssometimessmoke
ductandsternumserveasitsorgansofconsciousness—that bezoarscrapingstoencounterdeermorereadily.SomeA´vila
is,itssitesofsoulstuff.Throughthem,theagoutidetectsthe Runaalsoingestjaguarbiletobecomewere-jaguars.Assuch,
presence of predators. People’s awareness of other beings theyareempoweredintheirdailyaffairsandtheirsoulgoes
isalsosomaticallylocalized.Musculartwitches,forexam- toinhabitthebodyofajaguarafterdeath.
8
Howdogsdream (cid:2) AmericanEthnologist
VonUexku¨llwrotethata“spider’swebis...formedin (kindof)bodyorwhetheritis“thatotherself”—thehuman
a ‘fly-like’ manner, because the spider itself is ‘fly-like.’ To psychologicalone—“thatisjustcomingintolifeintheflow
be‘fly-like’meansthatthebodystructureofthespiderhas oftime”(CP5.421),asonesignisinterpretedbyanewone
takenoncertainofthefly’scharacteristics”(1982:66).Aspi- inthatsemioticprocessbywhichthoughts,minds,andour
der’swebisbothaphysicalextensionofthespiderandan verybeingquaself,emerge.
extremely precise representation of a fly—it fits the fly so Ourlivesdependonourabilitiestobelieveinandact
wellthatitcanquiteliterallycapturetheinsect.Beingaware ontheprovisionalguesseswemakeaboutthemotivationsof
ofanotherbeing—penetratingitsumwelt—insomesense otherselves(Bateson2000:486;Haraway2003:50).Itwould
requiresontologicalblurring;whatpartofawebisflyand be impossible for the Runa to hunt successfully or to en-
whatpartisspider?Thesoultransferthatoccurswhenadog gageinanyotherkindofinteractionwithinthisecologyof
ingestsanagouti’ssternumorwhenapersondrinksjaguar selveswithoutestablishingsomesortofsetofassumptions
bileindicateshowcertainattemptsattransspeciescommu- about the agencies of the myriad beings that inhabit the
nicationalsoentailakindofbecomingthatblursontological forest.
boundaries.
Iftransspeciesinteractionsdependonthecapacityto
Dog–human entanglements
recognizesubjectivity,losingthisabilitycanbedisastrous
for beings, such as the Runa, their dogs, and the animals Inmanyways,dogsandpeopleinA´vilaliveinindependent
oftheforest,thatareenmeshedinwebsofpredation.For worlds.Dogsareoftenignoredandarenotevenalwaysfed,
instance, something known as the “hunting soul” (casari- anddogsseemtolargelyignorepeople.Restinginthecool
anaalma)allowsmentobeawareofpreyintheforest.En- shadeunderthehouse,stealingoffafterthebitchnextdoor,
emyshamanssometimesstealthissoulwiththeeffectthat or,asHilario’sdogsdidafewdaysbeforetheywerekilled,
theirvictimcannolongerdetectanimals.Withoutthissoul, huntingdownadeerontheirown—dogslargelylivetheir
hunterslosetheirabilitytotreatpreybeingsasselves,and ownlives.20Yettheirlivesarealsointimatelyentangledwith
theycan,therefore,nolongerdifferentiateanimalsfromthe thoseoftheirmasters.Thisentanglementdoesnotjustin-
environmentinwhichthesebeingslive. volve the circumscribed context of the home or village. It
This condition is an example of a widespread phe- is also the product of the interactions that dogs and peo-
nomenoninA´vila,whichisaby-productoftreatingthenu- plehavewiththebioticworldoftheforestaswellaswith
merousbeingsthatinhabittheworldasselves.Icallit“cos- the sociopolitical world beyond A´vila through which both
mological autism.”19 When men lose their hunting souls, speciesarelinkedbythelegacyofacolonialhistory.Dog–
they become, in a certain sense, “autistic.” If the medical humanrelationshipsneedtobeunderstoodintermsofboth
conditionknownasautismreferstoastateofisolationthat ofthesepoles.Thehierarchicalstructureonwhichthesere-
isaresultofcognitivedifficultiesintreatingotherpeopleas lationshipsarebasedissimultaneously(butnotequally)a
intentionalbeings(Baron-Cohen1995),thencosmological biologicalandacolonialfact.Forexample,predator–preyre-
autism,withinthecontextofaRunaecologyofselves,refers lationshipscharacterizehowtheRunaandtheirdogsrelate
toacomparablestatethatensueswhenbeingsofanysort totheforestaswellastotheworldofwhites.
losetheabilitytorecognizethoseotherbeingsthatinhabit ThroughaprocessthatBrianHareandcolleagues(2002)
thecosmosasselves. call“phylogeneticenculturation,”dogshavepenetratedhu-
Byusingthetermcosmologicalautism,mygoalisnot mansocialworldstosuchanextentthattheyexceedeven
tocompareaRuna“cultural”categorytoapurportedlyob- chimpanzeesinunderstandinghumancommunication.Be-
jectivescientificone—aquintessentially“multiculturalist” coming“human”intherightwaysiscentraltosurvivingas
strategy.Rather,mygoalistosuggestthateach,initsown adoginA´vila(cf.Ellen1999:66;Haraway2003:41).Accord-
highly specific way, highlights the general challenges and ingly, people strive to guide their dogs along this path in
difficultiesofinteractingwiththoseotherselvesthatinhabit muchthesamewaytheyhelpyoungstersmatureintoadult-
theworld. hood.Justastheyadviseachildonhowtolivecorrectly,the
Somenotionofthemotivationsofothersisnecessaryto Runaalsocounseltheirdogs.Todothis,peoplemakethem
getbyinaworldinhabitedbyvolitionalbeings.Wecannever ingest a mixture of plants and other substances—such as
knowwhatotherselves—humanornonhuman—are“really” agoutibile—knowncollectivelyastsita(seeFigure3).Some
thinking,justaswecanneverbesosureofwhatweourselves oftheingredientsarehallucinogenicandalsoquitetoxic.21
arereallythinking.AsPeircenotes,ifyouquestion“whether Bygivingthemadviceinthisfashion,theRunatrytorein-
wecaneverenterintooneanother’sfeelings,”you“might forceahumanethosofcomportmentthatdogs,ingeneral,
justaswellaskmewhetherIamsurethatredlookedtome arealsothoughttoshare.22
yesterdayasitdoestoday”(CP1.314).Intersubjectivityas LikeRunaadults,dogsshouldnotbelazy.Thismeans
wellasintrospectionaresemioticallymediated.Itmakesno that, instead of chasing chickens and other domestic an-
differencewhetherthatinterpretingselfislocatedinanother imals, dogs should pursue forest game. In addition, dogs,
9
AmericanEthnologist (cid:2) Volume34 Number1 February2007
Figure3. Preparingto“advise”adog.Thedog’ssnoutisheldshut,andthewhitetsitamixtureisvisibleinthebackground.PhotobyE.Kohn.
like people, should not be violent. This means that dogs ThewayVenturaspoketohisdogisextremelyunusualandof
shouldrefrainfrombitingpeopleorbarkingatthemloudly. centralimportancetothisdiscussion.Ireturntoitlaterinthe
Finally, dogs, like their masters, should not expend all of article.Fornow,Ionlygiveageneralgloss.Inthefirstphrase,
theirenergyonsex.Ihaveobservedpeopleadministertsita “littlerodents”refersobliquelytotheagoutisthatdogsare
todogsonseveraloccasions.WhathappenedatVentura’s supposedtochase.Thesecondphraseisanadmonitionnot
house is typical of these episodes in many respects. Ac- toattackdomesticanimalsbuttohuntforestones,instead.
cording to Ventura, before his dog Puntero discovered fe- Thethirdphraseencouragesthedogtochaseanimalsbut
males,hewasagoodhunter.Oncehebegantobesexually otherwisenottorunaheadofthehunter.Thefourthphrase
active, however, he lost the ability to be aware of animals reaffirmswhatagooddogshouldbedoing—findinggame
intheforest.Becausesoulsubstanceispassedtoadevel- andthereforebarking“huahua.”Thefinalphraserefersto
opingfetusthroughsemenduringsex(seealsoUzendoski thefactthatsomedogs“lie.”Thatis,theybark“huahua”
2005:133),hebecame“autistic.”So,earlyonemorningVen- evenwhennoanimalsarepresent.
turaandhisfamilycapturedPuntero,fastenedhissnoutshut As Ventura poured the liquid, Puntero attempted to
withastripofvine,andhog-tiedhim.Venturathenpoured bark.Becausehissnoutwastiedshut,hewasunabletodo
tsita down Puntero’s nostrils. While doing this he said the so.Whenhewasfinallyreleased,Punterostumbledoffand
following: remainedinadazeallday.Suchatreatmentcarriesrealrisks.
Manydogsdonotsurvivethisordeal,whichhighlightshow
chaseslittlerodents dependentdogsareonexhibitinghumanqualitiesfortheir
itwillnotbitechickens physicalsurvival.ThereisnoplaceinRunasocietyfordogs
chasesswiftly asanimals.
itshouldsay,“huahua” Dogs, however, are not just animals becoming peo-
itwillnotlie ple. They can also acquire qualities of jaguars—the
10
Howdogsdream (cid:2) AmericanEthnologist
quintessentialpredators.Likejaguars,dogsarecarnivorous. line predator, and the obedient dog of a white animal
Theirnaturalpropensity(whentheyhavenotsuccumbed master.
todomesticlaziness)istohuntanimalsintheforest.Even BesidesbeingemblematicoftheRunapredicamentof
when dogs are fed vegetal food, such as palm hearts, the beingsimultaneouslypredatorandprey,dominantandsub-
Runarefertoitasmeatintheirpresence. missive,dogsarealsoextensionsofpeople’sactionsinthe
PeopleinA´vilaalsoseedogsastheirpotentialpreda- worldbeyondthevillage.Becausetheyserveasscouts,of-
tors.Duringtheconquest,theSpaniardsuseddogstoattack tendetectingpreywellbeforetheirmasterscan,dogsextend
theforebearsoftheA´vilaRuna(Oberem1980:66;seealso Runapredatoryendeavorsintheforest.Theyarealso,along
ArieldeVidas2002:538;Schwartz1997:162–163).Today,this withtheRuna,subjecttothesamethreatsofpredationby
caninepredatorynatureisacknowledgedinaspecialritual jaguars.25
mealcentraltoafeastheldafterapersondies.Thismeal InadditiontothelinkagestheyhelptheRunaforgewith
consistsofpalmhearts.Theseresemblehumanbonesand thebeingsoftheforest,dogsalsoallowthemtoreachout
serveasakindofmortuaryendocannibalisticsubstitution tothatotherworldbeyondthevillage—therealmofwhite–
forthecorpseofthedeceased.23PeopleatonesuchfeastI mestizocolonistswhoownranchesnearA´vilaterritory.A´vila
observedstressedthatundernocircumstancesmustdogs dogs are woefully underfed, and, as a result, they are of-
eatthem.Dogs,whoseepalmheartsasmeat,arepredators tenquiteunhealthy.Forthisreason,theyarerarelyableto
parexcellence,for,likejaguarsandcannibalistichumans, produceviableoffspring,andtheRunamustoftenturnto
they can come to treat people as prey (see Conklin 2001; outsiderstoobtainpups.Ahuman-inducedcaninerepro-
Faustoinpress). ductive failure, then, makes the Runa dependent on out-
Dogs, then, can acquire jaguarlike attributes, but sidersfortheprocreationoftheirdogs.TheRunaalsotend
jaguarscanalsobecomecanine.Despitetheirmanifestrole toadoptthedognamesthatcolonistsuse.Thispracticeisa
as predators, jaguars are also the subservient dogs of the furtherindicatorofhowdogsarealwayslinkstoabroader
spiritbeingswhoarethemastersoftheanimalsinthefor- socialworld,evenwhentheyarealsoproductsofadomestic
est.AccordingtoVentura,“Whatwethinkofasajaguaris sociability.
actually[thespiritanimalmaster’s]dog.” As a link between forest and outside worlds, dogs in
IneedtonoteherethattheA´vilaRunaoftenthinkof manywaysresembletheRunawho,as“ChristianIndians,”
spiritanimalmastersaspowerfulwhiteestateownersand have historically served as mediators between the urban
priests.24 The game animals the spirits own and protect worldofwhitesandthesylvanoneofthe“Auca,”ornon-
arelikenedtotheherdsofcattlethatwhiteskeepontheir Christian“unconquered”indigenouspeoples,especiallythe
ranches.TheRuna,liketheAchuar,aboutwhomPhilippe Huaorani(Hudelson1987;Taylor1999:195).26Untilapprox-
Descola(1994)haswrittenextensively,“socialize”natureby imatelythe1950s,theRunawereactuallyenlistedbypower-
extendinghumansocialrelationstothebeingsoftheforest. fulestateowners—ironically,likethemastiffsoftheSpanish
IncontrasttothemoreisolatedAchuar,however,theRuna conquest used to hunt down the Runa forebears—to help
havebornethefullbruntofcolonialexpansionintotheUp- themtrackdownandattackHuaoranisettlements.27 And,
perAmazon(seeMuratorio1987;Taylor1999).Accordingly, asranchhands,theycontinuetohelpcolonistsengagewith
thevisionofsocietytheyextendtotherealmoftheforest theforestby,forexample,huntingforthem.
includesasenseoftheirownplaceinabroadercolonialand IshouldalsonotethatthekindsofdogsthattheRuna
republicanarena.This,then,inpart,iswhyanimalmasters acquirefromcolonistsdonotbelong,forthemostpart,to
arewhite. anyrecognizablebreed.ThroughoutmuchofEcuador,such
AsIindicatedearlier,theRunacanpotentiallybecome dogsaredisparaginglydescribedas“runa”(asinunperro
were-jaguars.ManyRuna,especiallythosethathavedevel- runa)—thatis,asmutts.InQuichua,bycontrast,runameans
oped shamanistic powers, acquire a kind of jaguar habi- “person.”Itisusedasasortofpronominalmarkerofthesub-
tus. This gives them predatory power when they are alive jectposition—forallselvesseethemselvesaspersons—and
and allows their souls to inhabit the bodies of jaguars at it is only hypostasized as ethnonym in objectifying prac-
death. As Ventura explained it to me, with reference to ticessuchasethnography,racialdiscrimination,andiden-
his recently deceased father, when a person “with jaguar” tity politics.28 This Quichua term for person, however, has
(Quichua, pumayu) dies, his or her soul goes to the for- come to be used in Spanish to refer to mongrel dogs.29 It
est to “become a dog.” Were-jaguars become the dogs wouldnotbetoofarastretchtosuggestthatruna,formany
of the spirit animal masters. That is, they become sub- Ecuadorians, refers to those dogs that lack a kind of civi-
servient to them in the same way that the Runa, in ev- lizedstatus,thosesincultura.Certainkindsofdogsanda
eryday life, enter into subservient relations when they go certainhistoricalgroupofindigenouspeople,theQuichua-
to work as field hands for the estate owners and priests speaking“Runa”—accordingtoalogicthatismulticultural,
who serve as this-world models for the spirit beings. The notmultinatural—havecometoserveasmarkersalongthis
were-jaguar, then, is simultaneously Runa, a potent fe- imaginedroutefromanimalitytohumanity.
11
AmericanEthnologist (cid:2) Volume34 Number1 February2007
AfinalobservationaboutRuna–dogbecomingshasim- resentationsoftheworld.Rather,theyareeventsthattake
portantimplicationsforthefollowingdiscussion:Suchbe- placeinit.Assuch,theyarenotexactlycommentariesabout
comings often involve an important hierarchical compo- thefutureorthepastbut,moreaccurately,formpartofa
nent;humansanddogsaremutuallyconstitutedbutinways singleexperiencethatspanstemporaldomainsandstates
thatarefundamentallyunequalforthepartiesinvolved(see ofconsciousness.
alsoHaraway2003:41,45).Thedomesticationofdogs,begin- The vast majority of dreams that people in A´vila dis-
ningsome15,000yearsago(Savolainenetal.2002),wasde- cussareabouthuntingorotherforestencounters.Mostare
pendent,inpart,onthefactthattheprogenitorsofdogswere interpretedmetaphoricallyandestablishacorrespondence
highly social animals that lived in well-established domi- betweendomesticandforestrealms.Forexample,ifahunter
nancehierarchies.Partoftheprocessofdomesticationin- dreamsofkillingadomesticpig,hewillkillapeccary(akind
volvedreplacingtheapexofthishierarchyinsuchawaythat ofwildpig)intheforestthefollowingday.Thenocturnalen-
dogswouldimprintontheirhumanmasterasthenewpack counterisonebetweentwosouls—thatofthepigandthatof
leader.Human–dogbecomingsaredependentontheways theRunahunter.Killingthepig’snocturnaldomesticmani-
inwhichcanineandhumansocialitiesmerge,andtheyare festation,therefore,renderssoullessitsforestmanifestation
alwayspredicated,insomemeasure,ontheongoingestab- encounteredthefollowingday.Now“autistic,”thiscreature
lishmentofrelationsofdominanceandsubmission(Ellen caneasilybefoundintheforestandhuntedbecauseitisno
1999:62).Incolonialandpostcolonialsituations,suchasthat longercognizantofthoseotherselvesthatmightstandtoit
inwhichtheRunaareimmersed,thismergeracquiresre- aspredators.
newed meaning. Dogs are submissive to their Runa mas- Metaphoric dreams are ways of experiencing certain
tersinthesamewaythattheRuna,historically,havebeen kinds of ecological connections among different kinds of
forcedtobesubmissivetowhiteestateowners,government beings in such a manner that ontological distance is rec-
officials,andpriests(seeMuratorio1987).Thispositionis ognized and maintained without losing the possibility for
notfixed,however.ThelowlandRuna,incontrasttotheir communication.Thisisaccomplishedbyvirtueoftheability
highlandindigenousQuichua-speakingcounterparts,have ofmetaphortounitedisparatebutanalogous,andtherefore
always maintained a higher degree of autonomy vis-a`-vis related, entities. It recognizes a gap as it points to a con-
stateauthorities.They,andtheircaninecompanions,then, nection.Undernormalwakingcircumstances,theRunasee
arealsolikepowerfulpredatoryjaguarsthat,fortheirpart, peccariesintheforestaswildanimals,eventhoughtheysee
arenotjusttheserviledogsoftheanimalmasters. themintheirdreamsasdomesticpigs.Butthesituationis
morecomplicatedthanthis.Thespiritanimalmasterswho
ownandcarefortheseanimals(whichappearaspeccaries
Dreaming
totheRunaintheirwakinglives)seethemastheirdomes-
TheentanglementsbetweentheRunaandtheirdogsentail ticpigs.So,whentheRunadream,theyseetheseanimals
dangersthatmustbemitigated.ThechallengefortheRuna fromthespiritmasters’pointofview—asdomesticpigs.Im-
istoavoidthestateofmonadicisolationthatIcall“cosmo- portantly, the spirit animal masters are considered by the
logicalautism,”bywhichtheylosetheabilitytobeaware Runa to be ontologically dominant. From the perspective
oftheotherselvesthatinhabitthemultinaturalcosmos— ofthesemasters,theliteralgroundforthemetaphoricrela-
astatethatDescola,discussingtheAchuar,referstoasthe tionshipbetweenpeccaryanddomesticpigistheanimalas
“solipsismofnaturalidioms”(1989:443).Yettheywanttodo domesticate.
sowithoutfullydissolvingthatsortofselfhooddistinctive What is literal and what is metaphoric shifts. For the
totheirpositioninthiscosmosashumanbeings.Cosmo- animal masters’ “nature” is not the ground (cf. Strathern
logical autism and becoming other are opposite extremes 1980:189);peccariesarereallydomesticpigs.Soonecould
alongacontinuumthatspanstherangeofwaysofinhab- saythat,fromtheperspectiveofananimalmaster,whichis
iting an ecology of selves. A constant tension, then, exists theontologicallydominantoneand,therefore,theonethat
between ontological blurring and maintaining difference, carriesmoreweight,ahunter’sdreamofapigistheliteral
andthechallengefortheRunaistofindwaystomaintain ground for which his forest encounter with a peccary the
thistensionwithoutbeingpulledtoeitherextreme. followingdayisametaphor.InA´vila,theliteralreferstoa
Becausedreamingisunderstoodtobeaprivilegedmode customaryinterpretationoftheworldinternaltoagivenon-
ofcommunicationthroughwhich,viasouls,contactamong tologicaldomain.Metaphor,bycontrast,isusedinA´vilato
beingsinhabitingdifferentontologicalrealmsbecomespos- understandacrossontologicaldomains.It,therefore,aligns
sible,itisanimportantsiteforthisnegotiation.According differentontologicallysituatedpointsofview.Thedistinc-
totheRuna,dreamsaretheproductoftheambulationsof tionbetweenfigureandground,then,canchangeaccording
thesoul.Duringsleep,thesoulseparatesfromthebody,its tocontext.Whatstaysconstantisthatmetaphorestablishes
“owner”(duin˜u,fromtheSpanishduen˜o),andinteractswith adifferenceinperspectivebetweenbeingsinhabitingdif-
thesoulsofotherbeings.FortheRuna,dreamsarenotrep- ferentontologicaldomains.Inthisway,itisacrucialbrake
12