Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2003, volume 21, pages 583 ^ 606

DOI:10.1068/d339

`A people with our own identity': toward a cultural politics of development in Ecuadorian Amazonia
Thomas Perreault

Department of Geography, 144 Eggers Hall, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-1020, USA; e-mail: taperrea@maxwell.syr.edu Received 12 June 2001; in revised form 26 August 2002

Abstract. In this paper I examine the cultural politics of international development among Ecuadorian indigenous federations. Many critiques, focused on the national or international scale, have portrayed development as monolithic, homogenizing, and depoliticized. However, when specific practices and discourses of development are examined, particularly among locally based rural peoples' organizations, it becomes clear that development is a diverse process, and its meaning is highly contested. I argue that, for Ecuadorian indigenous organizations, international development provides an idiom for negotiating civil and resource rights. This process is demonstrated through an institutional ethnography of an indigenous federation in the Ecuadorian Amazon, which highlights the ways that the federation uses the discourses of nationalist development and environmentalism in order to contest official understandings of citizenship and the nation.

Introduction: development, identity, and indigenous organizations `Development' is one of the defining ideas of our times. The intrigue, admiration, and criticism it attracts can largely be attributed to the fact that it is interpreted in so many diverse, often contradictory, ways. What for the World Bank or International Monetary Fund (IMF) is a process of poverty alleviation and empowerment is for critics on the right an inefficient waste of resources on undeserving targets,(1) while those on the left critique development as an apparatus of Western hegemony that creates, rather than eliminates, poverty (for example, Yapa 1996a; 1996b). Indeed, as Frederick Cooper and Randall Packard (1998, page 4) note, it is the ``marvelous ambiguity of the word development'' that makes the concept so valuable as an entry point for critical analyses into its workings and debates over its interpretation. Because of its multivalent and at times contradictory character, interrogations into development and the ways that it is enacted, understood, and contested, are vital. Since the early 1990s, antidevelopment authors have provided powerful indictments of development discourse and its effects in depoliticizing, disempowering, and destroying Third World cultures (Escobar, 1992; 1995; Sachs, 1992; Yapa, 1996a; 1996b). Although these analyses have proven useful in unpacking the often racist, paternalistic nature of development, they have frequently represented it as monolithic, homogeneous, and unidirectional, eliding the inherent complexities of the institutions, practices, and discourses involved. Moreover, such portrayals tend to privilege national and transnational processes, while local actors and organizations have often been relegated to the roles of passive victims or noble resisters (for example, Escobar, 1999; Shiva, 1989). A powerful, yet problematic, metaphor for development was supplied by James Ferguson (1990) in his discursive and institutional analysis of regional development in Lesotho. Drawing on Michel Foucault, Ferguson argues that development functions as an `antipolitics machine', and that individual development projects for example,
For example, when he was chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Jesse Helms famously said of international-development assistance that it was tantamount to throwing money down ``foreign rat holes''.
(1)

584

T Perreault

those aimed at improving agriculture, health care, or infrastructure are rarely successful if judged by the merits of their putative intentions. However, they are highly successful, he argues, in serving state power through other means: development projects expand bureaucratic control over relatively remote portions of the countryside and insert state authority more deeply into the lives of citizens, while simultaneously depoliticizing inherently power-laden processes of directed transformations in livelihoods, land rights, and governance. ``The `instrument-effect,' then, is two-fold: alongside the institutional effect of expanding bureaucratic state power is the conceptual or ideological effect of depoliticizing both poverty and the state'' (Ferguson, 1990, page 256). Ferguson's analysis provides a powerful indictment of development planning and its capacity to transform landscapes and discipline lives while simultaneously deflecting criticism or politicized opposition. But, although this perspective helps us to understand the workings of power within the discourses and practices of development at the transnational and national scales, his arguments remain problematic. First, his assertion that development serves to expand state power merits careful scrutiny. In the context of neoliberal restructuring and the contraction of Third World states, the roles of nonstate actors must be accounted for, as transnational capital, nongovernmental advocacy networks, and a host of multilateral financial institutions are in many cases as influential as state agencies in circumscribing livelihoods. Moreover, such actors often produce spaces of governance oil fields, regional development projects, production zonesin which state control may be severely limited (Watts, 2001). Indeed, we know very little about these new modes of governmentality, produced through the work of nonstate development actors, institutions, and discourses. Second, and of more central concern to my argument, Ferguson's contention that development depoliticizes the causes and effects of socioeconomic transformation demands reexamination. As I hope to demonstrate in this paper, when we turn our focus to specific places and practices an alternative interpretation emerges. Development in this sense is a highly contentious process that brings into contact a variety of cultural, economic, and political struggles. In contrast to Ferguson's assertions, development, in this sense, is highly political. For this reason, I adopt Donald Moore's (2000) metaphor of development as a ``crucible of cultural politics'', which emphasizes the role of development in welding together and magnifying struggles that are simultaneously material and symbolic. Such a view, ``conceives of development politics as a complex articulation whose outcomes are ... historically contingent ... not rigidly determined by an underlying structure or discursive formation. Thus conceived, articulation offers a means for understanding the emergent assemblages of development in historically and geographically specific contexts'' (page 674). Global discourses of development, critiqued by Ferguson, are inflected and reworked by local peoples' organizations. For Amazonian indigenous federations such as the one examined in this paper, the social relations, practices, and discourses of international development, within which these groups are deeply embedded, form an ideological `crucible' in which resource rights, national belonging, and ethnic identities are articulated and contested. The discourses of indigenous peoples' organizations perform what Stuart Hall (1990; 1996a) identifies as the double task of articulation: to render explicit certain identities, interests, and ideologies while simultaneously welding them to specific political subjects. Crucially, a group's self-identification is not predetermined or inevitable, but neither is it externally imposed or merely invented. Rather, it involves the positioning of identities between different, often contradictory, subjectivities, a process that ``draws upon historically sedimented practices, landscapes, and repertoires of meaning, and emerges through particular patterns of engagement and struggle'' which

`A people with our own identity'

585

are subject to constant renegotiation (Li, 2000, page 151). Seen thus, the discourses, practices, and institutions of development form a conceptual terrain for contesting official understandings of, for example, land rights and national belonging. This insight calls for careful examination of the ways in which developmentas particular sets of discourses, practices, and ideals, conjoined in the form of `development projects'is mediated and contested by specific actors. What are needed, then, as Arturo Escobar (1995, page 13) calls for, are ethnographies of development. In this paper, I am interested less in evaluating the `success' or otherwise of rural development projects in Ecuador than I am in highlighting the meanings with which development is inscribed, the ways it is contested, and the cultural work it performs. But what do we mean when we use the term `development'? Michael Cowen and Robert Shenton (1996; 1998) observe that two distinct meanings for the term are often conflated in the literature, frequently leading to conceptual and analytical confusion. On the one hand, development is discussed in terms of processes of globalizing modernization and capitalist integration. In this sense, development is seen as structural change, enacted by states and faceless transnational institutions, and affecting whole societies. This is development writ large. On the other hand, development may be discussed in terms of directed interventions. In this sense, development takes the form of discreet `development projects', enacted in particular places by specific organizations and individuals. This is development on the scale of the local and personal. As Anthony Bebbington (2002) notes, these meanings are distinct, and the relationship between them is neither determinant nor unidirectional. Although individual development interventions may contribute to broader-scale processes of structural change (for example, agricultural projects that encourage market production and therefore capitalist integration), they may have a different effect entirely (for example, projects that improve rural health care, access to education, or household food security). Importantly, however, although both meanings of development are conceptually distinct, they each carry important social implications, in the sense that structural change and directed interventions both act to shape cultural understandings, often in profound ways. Central to this study is the fact that, although the experience of `development' may assume distinct meanings in different contexts and at different scales, its importance to Ecuadorian indigenous peoples as a symbolic and material referent is profound. These issues are examined by Stacy Leigh Pigg (1992), in her study of development discourse in Nepal, who notes that, ``In transforming both the terms in which social identities are cast and the symbols that mark social difference, development has effects that are cultural'' (page 492). As Pigg is careful to point out, development is not experienced as an amorphous, abstract process, but rather is enacted through very specific sets of institutions, practices, and social relationships. Insofar as developmentwhether understood as structural change or as directed intervention (or both)is centrally concerned with changing the way people live their lives, the institutions, practices, and social relations it entails are inherently laden with power (Cooper and Packard, 1998). Development is thus irreducibly political. At the same time, however, normative ideologies of modernization, and the material effects of development projectslatrines, electricity, health clinics, commercial fertilizer, roads have profound consequences for the ways in which people come to understand themselves and make sense of their world. Development in this sense forms a conceptual context that shapes meanings, aspirations, and social understandings. Identities of individuals, groups, and places are formed through the lens of, and in relationship to, the seductive promise of development (Pigg, 1992). As Akhil Gupta (1998, page 11) notes, development ``is about the economic position of a nation-state relative to others, but is also crucially a form of identity in the postcolonial world.'' Identities thus formed

586

T Perreault

are continually produced and reproduced through processes of contestation and negotiation. Development in this sense is irreducibly cultural. My goal in this paper, then, is to examine the cultural politics of developmentthat is, the manner in which the practices, discourses, and social relations of rural development become sites of contestation in which indigenous peoples' organizations challenge official understandings of citizenship, ethnic identity, and national belonging. I am thus concerned with the ways that indigenous identities, and the meanings with which they are imbued, ``are constitutive of processes that ... seek to redefine social power'' (Alvarez et al, 1998, page 7). I examine these processes through an institutional ethnography of an indigenous organization in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Such an approach to development studies can lend two valuable insights. First, a close examination of particular organizations and their involvement with the practices, institutions, and discourses of development can illuminate the ways that those organizations mediate development, construct identities, and contest power. These processes have been central to the ways that indigenous organizations have helped to secure livelihood opportunities, land rights, and expanded political participation for indigenous peoples in Ecuador. Second, institutional ethnographies can help us to understand better the experience of development itself, as a site of material and symbolic struggleMoore's ``crucible of cultural politics''. If we are to take seriously the role of indigenous peoples' organizations in enhancing both material livelihoods and democratic participation for marginalized rural communities, then we must pay close attention to the ways that these organizations resist, refract, and at times reproduce dominant narratives of development, modernization, and citizenship. The paper continues with a brief discussion of the role of indigenous organizations in the context of international development in Ecuador. This is followed by an examination of the history of indigenous organizing in the Ecuadorian Amazon, and of the ways that these organizations have been shaped by state programs of national, and nationalist, development. These organizations were in many cases formed according to class-based, corporatist models, and throughout their histories have had close contact with state agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and church-based organizations (Bebbington et al, 1992; Yashar, 1999). This discussion leads into an institutional ethnography of the Federation of Indigenous Organizations of Napo (FOIN),(2) with a focus on its participation in and statements about development projects.(3) I end this paper with a discussion of FOIN's discursive constructions of citizenship and the nation,
(2) In August 1999, delegates to the FOIN congress voted to change the name of the federation to n de Organizaciones de la Nacionalidad Kichwa de Napo (Federation of Orgathe Federacio nizations of the Kichwa [Quichua] Nationality of Napo, FONAKIN). This name changenow in effect was not adopted until summer 2002, well after my field-research period had ended. I have therefore chosen to retain the name FOIN in this paper. (3) The institutional ethnography presented here is based on eighteen months of field research in Ecuador, conducted between 1998 and 2001. In order to investigate FOIN's participation in development projects and its role in representing Quichua identities, I conducted semistructured and open-ended interviews with FOIN personnel, as well as with representatives of NGOs, state agencies, and funding institutions working in the region. I also carried out detailed document analysis in FOIN's archives, which date to the late 1960s, in order to reconstruct the federation's organizational and project history. Additionally, I attended a variety of FOIN events, including routine meetings, public demonstrations, a biannual congress, and the inaugural ceremonies for newly elected leaders. At the same time that I was working with FOIN, I conducted field research in one of the federation's constituent communities. This work involved household surveys, focusgroup interviews with community residents, and in-depth interviews with community leaders. These surveys and interviews focused on agricultural production, the history of the community's involvement with external development agencies, and its relations with broader-scale indigenous organizations such as FOIN. This multisite approach allowed me to examine FOIN and its projects within a broader context of regional development and ethnic political mobilization.

`A people with our own identity'

587

and of how these notions are contested through the institutions and practices of intercultural bilingual education. I argue that development projects, coordinated through state agencies and frequently funded by international donors, become sites of ideological struggle through which indigenous organizations contest and negotiate official understandings of the state, the nation, and citizenship. Indigenous organizations and development in the Ecuadorian Amazon Ecuadorian indigenous peoples' cultural and political organizations provide particularly interesting institutional sites through which to examine the cultural workings of development. Many of these organizations were formed in a historical context in which the Ecuadorian state was engaged in a project of nationalist development, much of which centered on policies of integrating the country spatially, economically, and culturally. From the outset, then, indigenous organizations such as FOIN have been involved both in implementing development projects aimed at improving the livelihoods of their constituent members, and in defending indigenous peoples' rights to citizenship, resources, and territory. In this dual role, indigenous organizations have had to negotiate complex institutional relationships with state agencies, national and international NGOs, multilateral funding institutions, and, not infrequently, each other. The multiform nature of indigenous organizations militates against viewing them romantically, as sites of counterhegemonic resistance to state domination, or cynically, as mere conduits through which state power and transnational power are exerted. Rather, I view indigenous organizations as institutional intersections, where complex, overlapping, and at times contradictory social, cultural, and political processes conjoin. This view necessitates attention to Sherry Ortner's (1995) call for ethnographically `thick' interpretations of social movements, which avoid romanticizing and simplifying inherently complex subjectivities. Examination of Ecuadorian indigenous organizations is thus compelling not only because of their potential for resistance and progressive action, but also, and of particular importance to this study, because they present an opportunity to interrogate ways in which divergent identities, discourses, and politics articulate and are negotiated. Latin American indigenous peoples are not pristine, premodern cultures, nor have they been made triumphantly modern by the transformational experience of development. Rather, as Escobar (1995, page 218) notes in the case of Latin America more generally, their encounter with development can be ``characterized by complex processes of cultural hybridization encompassing manifold and multiple modernities and traditions.'' It is this hybrid character of indigenous organizations, or perhaps more precisely their ability to construct particularly useful forms of hybridity as sites of cultural transition and articulation (Li, 2000; Yu dice, 1998), that enables them to mediate relations of power and negotiate cultural meanings. stor Garc| a Canclini's (1995) emphasis on the deterritorialization of In contrast to Ne culture as a central element of cultural hybridity, however, Latin American indigenous movements have engaged in creative forms of re territorialization. As detailed below, the linking of identity and territory, enacted materially and represented discursively in manifold ways, has been central to the ability of indigenous organizations to consolidate and sustain political mobilization (Perreault, 2003a; 2003b). In Ecuador, indigenous peoples and their organizations are engaged in complex reweavings of modernity, nationalism, and development, in which understandings of traditional culture and place-based identities articulate with notions of citizenship and the nation. This paper, then, is an attempt to arrive at a better understanding of the political strategies and forms of social organization through which indigenous peoples' political and cultural organizations, in large part working through transnational networks, negotiate processes of development and social transformation.

588

T Perreault

Ethnic organizing and the Ecuadorian state FOIN and most other indigenous organizations in Ecuador have their institutional roots in state-led corporatist organizing in the 1960s and 1970s. During this period the Ecuadorian state promoted particular forms of social organization and political participation through which it channeled certain benefits. For indigenous peoples this meant that low-interest credit, land rights, and technical support were available only through organizational structures such as cooperatives or community associations. These organizations were in turn supported by state-sanctioned unions and labor federations that worked to organize peasant and indigenous communities throughout the country. The formation of peasant and labor organizations was facilitated by state agencies such as the Ecuadorian Institute for Agrarian Reform and Colonization, as well as by nonstate development organizations, labor unions, the Catholic and Protestant churches and affiliated organizations, and a variety of international agencies. The Ecuadorian Federation of Indians (FEI), affiliated with the Ecuadorian Communist Party, was active in facilitating the organization of indigenous communities, as was the less-radical (but leftleaning) National Federation of Campesino Organizations (Perreault, 2000; Perreault et al, 1998). These groups worked to organize indigenous communities along class-based lines, according to the corporatist model prevalent throughout Latin America during this period (see Santos Granero and Barclay, 2000; Yashar, 1998; 1999). Throughout Latin America, the corporatist model of development, rooted in the prevailing modernization theories of the 1950s and 1960s (for example, Hoselitz, 1952; Rostow, 1960), was bound up with an understanding of modern citizenship rooted in a homogenous mestizo nation (4) (Bonnett, 2000; Yashar, 1996). According to the ideologies of state-led economic development, indigenous peoples, whose distinct ethnic identity was considered a hindrance to the development of a modern Ecuador, were expected to adopt identities as citizens of the nation (Radcliffe, 1996; Radcliffe and Westwood, 1996). This ideology was famously expressed in 1972 by the president of the military government, General Guillermo Rodr| guez Lara, whoin response to a question regarding the state's national development plans and their potential effects on the indigenous peoples of the Amazon regionasserted that, ``There is no more Indian problem; we all become white when we accept the goals of the national culture'' (quoted in Whitten, 1976, page 268). The general's words, and the government's subsequent passage of a Law of National Culture, posited an official ideology of cultural homogenization which negated the validity and very existence of the country's indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian populations. Thus, state conceptualizations of development rested on ethnic erasure and cultural homogenization, deemed essential prerequisites to national integration and advancement (Stutzman, 1981). As was the case throughout Latin America, Ecuador's corporatist state model began to erode in the 1980s, with worsening economic crises and indebtedness, and the global ascendancy of neoliberalism. With the return in 1979 of civilian government, the Ecuadorian state set about systematically dismantling populist social programs. Following the dictates of neoliberal `stabilization' policies and structural adjustment programs promoted by the World Bank and the IMF, civilian administrations reduced or eliminated subsidies for food, fuel, and consumer goods; credit for peasant agriculture; and funding
Mestizo is a term that denotes the racial admixture of indigenous and European peoples. Importantly, the `racial' meaning of the term cannot be separated from its ideological significance, which posits a racial hierarchy in which whites of European heritage occupy the highest position, followed by mestizos or mixed-race peoplesfollowed in turn by indigenous and Afro-Latino peoples, who together occupy the lowest position. Thus, mestizaje, or the racial ideology associated with the mestizo ideal, is closely associated with the process of cultural improvement through blanquiamento, or progressive whitening (see, inter alia, Smith, 1997; Stutzman, 1981).
(4)

`A people with our own identity'

589

re, 2001). Although indigenous peoples' for education, welfare, and health care (Carrie organizations lost their principal means of financial and technical support, they were no longer restricted to class-based forms of organizing or identity representation. Meanwhile, the presence of international NGOs and aid agencies increased, partly in response to declining state investment in social, agricultural, and environmental services, and partly as a result of the growing reach of transnational advocacy networks during the 1980s (Bebbington and Thiele, 1993; Keck and Sikkink, 1998). This has allowed for alternative forms of political and cultural organizing, frequently focused on ethnic identity, and the `glocalization' of identity politicsthat is, the (re)construction of identities and organizations rooted in local places (communities, territories), which are simultaneously global in nature [that is, represented through, and in part forged by, national and transnational networks, compare Erik Swyngedouw (1997a; 1997b)]. Indigenous organizations formed under the paternalistic tutelage of the corporatist state have adapted themselves to new political-economic conditions, reconstituting themselves organizationally and reasserting their ethnic identities in various ways (Yashar, 1999). The Ecuadorian state's political-economic transformations and its promotion of particular organizational models, as well as the role of transnational networks, have been profoundly influential in shaping the forms that indigenous organizing could take, as well as the practical and discursive strategies that haveand have notbeen at their disposal. This is not to argue, however, that indigenous organizations are merely reactive to state policies or international advocacy groups. Rather, local indigenous organizational politics are best understood through the careful analysis of specific practices and discourses, and in the context of particular social relations and political-economic processes. In the remainder of this paper I provide a fine-grained analysis of one indigenous federation in the Ecuadorian Amazon, in an attempt to elucidate the ways in which it negotiates processes of development and modernization for its members, and how, through this process of mediation, it contests official understandings of citizenship and the nation. An institutional ethnography of FOIN In her analysis of the New Chronicle, a 17th-century manuscript written in both Spanish and Quechua by the Andean author Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, Mary Louise Pratt (1994) sheds light on what she refers to as, ``the intricate transcultural pragmatics of communication under conquest'' (page 25). Pratt is specifically concerned to examine the ways that subordinate groupsLatin American indigenous groups in both her case and mineappropriate elements of dominant language, cultural codes, and objectifying knowledge into their own discourse (and, I would add, into their own visual and performative representations). This process, which Pratt terms `autoethnography', serves as a counternarrative which subverts (though often indirectly) hegemonic representations of subaltern peoples. She defines autoethnographic textsof which Guaman Poma's text is the paradigmatic exampleas, ``text[s] in which people undertake to describe themselves in ways that engage with representations others have made of them. Thus if ethnographic texts are those in which European metropolitan subjects represent to themselves their others (usually their subjugated others), autoethnographic texts are representations that the so-defined others construct in response to or in dialogue with those texts. Autoethnographic texts are not, then what are usually thought of as autochthonous or `authentic' forms of self-representation ... . Rather they involve a selective collaboration with and appropriation of idioms of the metropolis or conqueror. These are merged or infiltrated to varying degrees with indigenous idioms
Autoethnography and ethnic praxis

590

T Perreault

to create self-representations intended to intervene in metropolitan modes of understanding'' (page 28, emphasis in original). FOIN's discourse, examined below, may be read as a form of autoethnography, in dialogue with dominant narratives of nationalist modernization, international development, and environmentalism. These narratives inform and structure the federation's discursive representations of identity, citizenship, territory, and cultural rights. Thus, the federation's statements should not be viewed as `authentic' representations of timeless indigenous identity or worldview, but nor do I wish cynically to suggest that they are merely opportunistic essentialisms produced for the benefit of external sponsors. Rather, I argue that FOIN's discourse serves to negotiate processes of development and modernization, simultaneously appropriating and contesting elements of hegemonic ideologies. As a mechanism for negotiating the cultural politics of development, FOIN's discourse is strategic, multiform, and often contradictory (Diskin, 1991). Self-reflective discourse has a constitutive effect on indigenous politics inasmuch as it may be used to legitimate claims to material resources or political rights. For this reason, it is best viewed as what Pierre Bourdieu (1977, page 170) refers to as an ``authorized language''. Because this discourse is ``invested with the authority of a group, the things it designates are not simply expressed but also authorized and legitimated'' (page 78). It is in this way that claims made in statements produced by FOIN and other indigenous federations, both for their own membership and for external organizations, are legitimated, and gain authority by being a public, and publicly recognized, discourse. This then brings into being not only indigenous political claims, but indigenous identities as well, through the linking of ethnicity and place, and the construction of a panregional Quichua nation. As Mark Rogers (1996, page 77) recognizes, self-representation is not merely reflective of social reality, but is constitutive of it ``in a way that produces naturalized experiences of that which is represented''. This is not to argue that the whole of Quichua identity can be reduced to the writings and utterances of a few leaders. Those individuals who produced the statements examined here are themselves a particular elite among Quichua peoplethey tend to be more fluent in Spanish, have more formal education, and enjoy greater access to national and international agencies than most other indigenous peoples in Ecuador.(5) However, inasmuch as FOIN represents a focal point of lowland Quichua political and cultural mobilization, these representations constitute a conceptual framework that conditions the relationship between FOIN's members and those institutionsthe state, markets, transnational development organizationsthat shape their lives. Because FOIN mediates these relationships, both ideologically and materially, I contend that its representations of identity matter a great deal. From early in its existence FOIN has placed emphasis on three distinct but complementary spheres of praxis. First, the federation works with state agencies and national and international NGOs to channel development funds to Quichua communities for specific projects aimed at improving infrastructure, health care, education, or agricultural production. Through its project oversight and budgetary management, FOIN attempts to maintain control over the activities of NGOsboth national and internationaloperating in its affiliated communities. In addition to its logistical, material management of development interventions, the federation shapes the meanings ascribed to such projects through, for example, speeches, documents, reports, and educational workshops. In doing so, the federation plays an important role in mediating the material and symbolic aspects of the development process and the ways in which specific interventions are experienced and interpreted by community members.
(5)

Most of these leaders do, however, come from rural communities, and in many cases maintain families and farms in those communities. On the role of indigenous elites, see Warren (1998).

`A people with our own identity'

591

Second, the federation acts as a civil-rights advocate for indigenous residents of Napo province, and, more abstractly, has played a crucial role in making citizenship claims against the state. Particularly in its early years, FOIN served as an advocate for indigenous individuals who had suffered civil-rights or human-rights violations at the hands of state officials or local elites. The federation's archives for the 1970s contain numerous letters written to local officials, national politicians, or business leaders, denouncing arbitrary arrests, beatings, nonpayment of wages, or other abuses against indigenous individuals in the region. Throughout its history, the federation has also played a central role in advocating and facilitating the titling of lands claimed by Quichua communities. In this capacity, FOIN continues to coordinate with state agencies and NGOs to demarcate and legalize land claims, and serves as an important arbiter and advocate in land disputes. When its demands have not been met, FOIN has led protests, asserting its presence and interests through the occupation of public spaces. In all these ways, both directly and indirectly, the federation has played a crucial role in challenging dominant, exclusionary conceptions of citizenship and the state. Third, like other indigenous orga n cultural nizations in Ecuador, FOIN is engaged in what is often termed reivindicacio which, as Kay Warren (1998, page xii) explains, ``expresses the wide-ranging demands for vindication, recognition, recovery, and rights as indigenous people''. It is in this role that the federation engages most directly and self-consciously in the representation of indigenous identities. It does this through a diversity of means, including discursive representation (in speeches and written documents), visual representation (from wallsized paintings to letterheads and logos), and the performance of cultural identity through community workshops, protests, and music and dance groups (Perreault, 2001). FOIN's hybrid position is of crucial importance to its ability to operate in these three spheres. By managing development interventions and the experience of specific projects for its members, the federation is acting as a modernizing institution, mediating the relationship between Quichua communities, the state, and national and international NGOs. In its role as advocate for indigenous political and resource rights, FOIN is similarly appealing to enlightenment ideals of liberal democracy. The federation legitimates its claims to development and citizenship rights not by erasing the otherness of its constituency, but precisely by highlighting it and negotiating a space for it within the nation (see Conklin and Graham, 1995). Central to this role are FOIN's discursive representations of Quichua identity, in which the federation positions itself as the mediator of the experience of development and modernity. The following discussion of FOIN's organizational history and discourse is organized chronologically, beginning with the establishment of the federation in 1969. It traces the discursive shifts and ideological positions of the federation through the period of military government and state-led corporatist development during the 1970s, the return to democracy and increasing internationalization of development in the 1980s, and the growing importance of environmental interests and neoliberal restructuring in the 1980s and 1990s. Although it is vital to consider the influence that these processes have had on shaping the federation's actions, one must also recognize that they may not be easily divided into discreet periods, nor may FOIN's discourse be simply `read off ' broader scale political and economic factors. Rather, the federation's practices and discourse are complex and frequently contradictory. In what follows, I have attempted to contextualize FOIN's actions and discourse through discussion of relevant ideologies, institutions, policies and practices of development, and the ways that these have intersected in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

592

T Perreault

In 1969, the federation was established in the Amazonian town of Tena as the Provincial Federation of Campesino Organizations of Napo (FEPOCAN), with the assistance of the state-sanctioned syndicalist organization the National Federation of Campesino Organizations (FENOC, see figure 1).(6) FENOC and its affiliated organizations played a central role in training, organizing, and funding the federation in its initial stages. Despite its syndicalist origins, and the fact that FENOC remained a major supporter of the federation throughout the 1970s, FEPOCAN's leaders soon recognized that their interests as indigenous peoples could not easily be mapped onto the class-based concerns of their primary sponsors. The federation sought to differentiate itself, while maintaining its strategic alliances, and by 1973 FEPOCAN documents began referring
City or town Road River Elevation b 600 m 0 50 km

Organizational history and discourse

100 km

Figure 1. Upper Napo river basin, northeastern Ecuador.

(6)

FENOC was affiliated with the Ecuadorian Center for Class-based Organizations (CEDOC), which in turn was affiliated with the Latin American Campesino Federation. Until 1967, CEDOC was the Ecuadorian Confederation of Christian Organizations, and was heavily influenced by the German Christian Democrats, retaining an explicitly Christian orientation into the late 1960s. FENOC has since reorganized and renamed itself as the National Federation of Campesino and Indigenous Organizations (FENOCIN), and is currently a major (though not the most prominent) national-level indigenous organization in Ecuador.

`A people with our own identity'

593

to the organization as the Federation of Indigenous Organizations of Napo (FOIN), explicitly identifying itself as an ethnically based rather than a class-based organization. The transition to ethnic politics was, however, a slow one, and although federation leaders sought to construct an identity for the organization as a representative of indigenous interests in the region they maintained close ties with FENOC, and expressed solidarity with working-class struggles. Throughout much of the 1970s, FOIN documents continued to identify the federation as the Peasant Federation of n Campesina de Napo), and made reference to the `indigenous class' Napo ( Federacio ( clase ind| gena ), terms that had largely disappeared from FOIN documents by the early 1980s. Throughout the 1970s the federation was occupied with three overriding concerns: first, legalizing lands claimed by Quichua communities in the upper Napo river basin, or Alto Napo, according to the requirements stipulated by agrarian reform legislation; second, obtaining legal recognition for indigenous community associations that lacked formal incorporation, so that they could be recruited as member communities; and third, defending and promoting the civil and human rights of indigenous peoples in the region. Much of the motivation for indigenous communities in the Alto Napo to seek legal title to their land claims stemmed from the very real threat of colonists from the highlands, coast, and elsewhere in the Amazon, as well as from the incursions of hacienda owners, oil companies, commercial agriculture, and the military. Under Ecuador's agrarian reform legislation, uncultivated landsmostly forested lands of the Amazon or on the coastwere considered `tierras bald| as ' (barren or fallow lands), and were made available by the state for colonization. As a result, many indigenous communities, whose land claims were suddenly vulnerable to invasions by colonists, turned to the federation for assistance in negotiating the unfamiliar and intimidating world of state bureaucracy necessary for obtaining legal title to their lands. The federation in turn worked closely with the state land-titling agency, the Ecuadorian Institute for Agrarian Reform and Colonization (IERAC), which provided technical assistance, training, and logistical and institutional support to the federation. During this period, the federation produced numerous written statements expressing its political, cultural, and developmental aims. Many of these statements, intended as press releases or as part of reports to its members, donors, state agencies, or other indigenous organizations, made explicit claims to land and resource rights. Then, as now, the discursive linking of identity and place formed an important strategy for voicing resource claims and defending community land rights. This is evident in a 1975 document denouncing the granting of land title to colonists by IERAC, which states, ``The land is ours and always will be by rights acquired through centuries of its use; the forest is ours, it is the temple of our ancestors and our God''. (7) Similarly, in a 1978 document, in which FOIN denounces the creation of INCRAE (National Institute of Colonization of the Ecuadorian Amazonian Region) the federation argues, ``As an Indian people, we are ... inheritors and executors of the cultural values of our millennial peoples of Ecuador and therefore the government cannot protect our culture by promoting our incorporation into national life, if at the same time the state does not guarantee nor defend the traditional settlements of the indigenous peoples of the region.'' (8)
(7) From an untitled 1975 FOIN archival document (FOIN's archives are housed in its offices at Calle Augusto Rueda 242, Tena, Napo, Ecuador). (8) This statement is taken from an untitled FOIN archival document dated 27 February 1978. The same statement also appears in another document entitled ``Acta de la Segunda Asamblea de la n de Organizaciones Ind| genas del Napo `FOIN', San Jose de Coca, 6 y 7 de abril del 1979''. Federacio

594

T Perreault

The statement goes on to say, ``For some the Oriente continues to be a MYTH without knowing that we are the millennial owners of the land; the land is the Indian. The Indian is that same land. The Indian is the owner of the land with property titles or without them.'' (9) The federation is thus appealing to the state's development plans to incorporate the Amazon and its peoples into national society, economy, and politics (Radcliffe, 1996; Radcliffe and Westwood, 1996; Whitten, 1981; 1985), while simultaneously claiming the rights guaranteed indigenous peoples as citizens of the nation. Crucially, the federation is making this claim based not on ethnic erasure and homogenizationas the state's modernist vision would have dictatedbut rather on ethnic difference within, rather than outside of, the nation. In calling for greater participation in state politics and fuller inclusion in state-led development, the federation is challenging the traditionally paternalistic relationship between the Ecuadorian state and indigenous peoples. As such, FOIN is calling for a reconfiguration of official notions of citizenship, a reconfiguration that is in large part rooted in the conceptual imbrication of identity and territory. Thus, the concept of land rights and, more abstractly, territory is invoked not only as an economic resource, but as integral to lowland Quichua understandings of culture and identity. These arguments, however, are made within the conceptual frame of national, and nationalist, development: recognizing the link between indigenous identity and land rights is a necessary first step to realizing national development goals. Here, then, the federation is positioning itself as aligned with the state's development objectives, constructing an identity as modern citizens of the nation. An even more explicit expression of Quichua peoples as modern, developmentalist, and progressive is apparent in a 1977 FOIN document discussing the aims of the federation: ``The Indigenous Federation of Napo trusts and hopes that the National Revolutionary Government will assist with agricultural development programs. The Indigenous Federation preaches, Brother: WORK YOUR LAND, THE LAND PRODUCES MONEY, with money educate your child well, with money you will be able to have: good housing, food, and good health. With money: your children may become professionals; and with that you will have gained much.'' (10) On the surface, this statementfrom an internal document, and thus intended to be read by or to other FOIN membersappears to be a clear attempt to appease the developmentalist tendencies of the military government, whose approval FOIN required to remain in existence. At the same time, however, these sentiments express inescapable values at the core of FOIN's existence. FOIN's objectives and organizational structure are rooted squarely in modernity, and it is only from its self-consciously modern and modernizing subject position that FOIN is able to construct an idealized past, or to naturalize the linkage between ethnicity and place. This notion of cultural progression is similarly conveyed in a 1974 letter regarding a proposed agricultural development project. After confidently asserting that in the second year of the project the federation expects to harvest 2.5 million quintales (some 250 million pounds) of manioc from 5000 hectares of land, the letter goes on to say,

(9) The assertion that ``for some the Oriente continues to be a MYTH'' is a reference to the statement in 1949 by President Galo Plaza Lasso, declaring that efforts to find oil in the Amazon and thus a new source of national wealthhad come to naught. ``The Oriente is a myth'', the president famously concluded. He would be proven wrong two decades later. (10) This is from a FOIN archival document dated 1977, and titled simply ``Federacio n de Organizaciones Ind| genas de Napo (FOIN), Tena''. Emphasis in the original.

`A people with our own identity'

595

``But what is important is not to have planted so much manioc, but rather the motivation that it caused to accelerate the process of transformation of the virgin forest into cultured lands [tierras cultas ] orderly reforested with selected species.'' (11) The use of the term `tierras cultas' (cultured lands) is significant here, for it refers not merely to occupied or cultivated lands, but to lands that have been culturally improved through the application of scientific management and capital investment that is, through modernization and conformity to nationalist ideals. This, then, is an appeal to the racial ideology of mestizaje (the racial ideology associated with the mestizo ideal) extrapolated to resource development (Rahier, 1998; Smith, 1997; Stutzman, 1981). During the 1970s indigenous organizations in the Ecuadorian Amazon sought to legitimize their claims to resources and political rights by appealing to dominant ideologies of the military government, a process that involved representing indigenous identities as modern and modernizing and as capable of managing resources according to state developmentalist objectives. To a large extent these representations reflect the types of indigenous organizations, such as cooperatives and peasant associations, fostered under military rule. As Rogers (1996) argues, however, appeal to transitional, progressive culture appears to be central to the ways that Amazonian Quichua peoples negotiate their place in Ecuadorian society, and may be seen in FOIN's agricultural development initiatives, community-scale agrarian transformations, and in the very structure and function of indigenous political organizations. This ideal was, until recently, visually represented by a painting on the wall of FOIN's conference room in its headquarters in Tena (figure 2, over). The painting showed five men side by side, the one furthest to the left naked and holding a spear. Next to him was another figure, also with a spear, but wearing a loincloth, and to his right a barefoot figure in shorts and a T-shirt, who appeared to be hiding his spear behind his back. To his right was a man in the most typical dress worn by men in the Alto Napo today: shoes, slacks, and a short-sleeve, button-down shirt with the collar open. His spear is on the ground, behind him. On the far right of the painting was a man in a suit and tie, holding a briefcase at his side. The painting plainly represented Quichua peoples in a process of cultural transition, from naked auca (12) to civilized citizena process in which FOIN plays a central mediating role. This image vividly illustrated the idea that the lowland Quichua (re)present themselves as culturally, spatially, and historically intermediate in the transition from unacculturated, Amazonian savages to national Andean (mestizo) society (Hudelson, 1981; Rogers, 1995). By discursively positioning themselves as intermediary and transitional, Quichua individuals and organizations may negotiate relations of power within what Jean Muteba Rahier (1998) identifies as Ecuador's ``racial/spatial order''. This image, painted over in 1999 when FOIN remodeled its offices,(13) vividly expressed the process of
(11) This letter is located in the 1974 FOIN archives, and is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. It was sent by Grupo Cero, an Ecuadorian development NGO working with FOIN on this project. (12) Auca is a Quichua term meaning savage. It has been adopted by mestizo society in Ecuador as a pejorative term for lowland indigenous peoples, and in particular for the Huaorani the ethnic group least integrated into national society. Lowland Quichua occasionally use the term to denote Amazonian indigenous groups perceived to be less advanced, modernized, and acculturated than themselves. (13) It is likely that some of FOIN's personnel, viewing as problematic the ideological content of the painting and its inappropriateness to contemporary indigenous politics, requested that it be painted over. Indeed, a FOIN representative told me as much. It should be noted, however, that a painting of a shaman performing a healing rituala representation of `traditional' Quichua cultural practices was similarly painted over. Moreover, before the painting was removed, another FOIN member told me that the painting represented the Quichua transition from auca to modern citizen, going so far as to indicate the stage along the trajectory that lowland Quichua currently occupied.

596

T Perreault

Figure 2. A painting which was formerly on the FOIN office wall illustrating the cultural progression from `naked savage' to `modern citizen'.

blanquiamientoprogressive whiteningthe nationalist ideal expressed in 1973 by General Rodr| guez Lara, in which indigenous people become white by accepting the goals of national culture. This, then, is culture as process: modernization through ethnic erasure. This painting may be read as autoethnography par exellence, in which FOIN visually represents itself in response to, and through the conceptual lens of, dominant ideologies of modernization and ethnic transformation. As with the New Chronicle of Guaman Poma examined by Pratt (1994), the painting is not a na| ve expression of the world as federation leaders believe it is or ought to be, but rather is an engagement with what FOIN leaders interpreted as the hegemonic narratives of nationalist development, and the place of indigenous peoples within them. This painting also recalls George Yu dice's (2001, page xv) insight that cultural hybridity involves the satisfaction of basic needs, ``[with]in a system of production and consumption not of one's choosing''. During the 1980s FOIN's practical and discursive focus began to shift from an emphasis on modernist development to a more explicitly indigenist politics, a shift that can in large part be traced to four interrelated processes. The first crucial factor was the end of the military government, which stepped down and allowed democratic elections in 1979. This created new political and discursive spaces which, while still limited, offered alternatives to the syndicalist forms of organizing sanctioned under the military government. A second factor was the rise of regional and national indigenous organizations, which, especially in the Oriente, were increasingly politicized. Between 1976 and 1986 four new regional organizations were formed in the Ecuadorian

`A people with our own identity'

597

Amazon, and the formation in 1980 of a regional umbrella groupthe Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazonprovided a coordinating body through which regional interests could be voiced. Also formed in 1980 was a national council of indigenous nationalities, which in 1986 was reorganized as the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE)which today is a major political actor in Ecuador and arguably one of the most influential indigenous organizations on the continent.(14) Third, the increasing presence of international NGOs in the region, primarily concerned with environmental conservation, rural development, or indigenous rights, diversified the set of organizational relationships with which FOIN was involved, and provided new sources of funding and technical support, as well as new ideological rationales for social organization and resource management (Brysk, 2000; Keck and Sikkink, 1998). Fourth, the rise of neoliberalism within and beyond Ecuador radically altered the context within which social groups mobilized politically and culturally. Political reforms meant that the state no longer delimited the organizational forms that social mobilization could take. At the same time, however, the reduction or elimination of state funding for agricultural assistance, welfare, and other forms of social assistance meant that indigenous organizations and their constituent members both lost a principal source of financial and technical support, and became increasingly vulnerable to impoverishment (Bebbington et al, 1993; Yashar, 1998; 1999). In the 1980s FOIN consolidated its support base, and in the process increased its capacity to facilitate a diverse array of development activities within its member communities, including projects in land titling, infrastructure construction, agricultural development and commercialization, health, and education. Increasing confidence and organizational capacity on the part of FOIN, its base communities, and the broader indigenous movement allowed FOIN to articulate its desires for a form of development appropriate to Quichua cultural values. In this way access to resources, funds, political rights, and territorycentral to FOIN's overall strugglebecame contested terrains, both materially and symbolically. This is exemplified in a FOIN report from 1980, which states: ``Effectively, the FOIN movement, as an historical fact is the bearer of values radically opposed to those that align with capitalist culture and civilization. The value of human dignity and of security. The value of justice and equality. The dynamic conviction of having everyone together and fraternally united in the task of constructing a communal society as we indigenous natives want and understand. Profound aspiration of an effective liberation, that in no case means a simple n, but rather the clear possibility of assuming all the responsibilities change of patro of human, social, personal, and collective development. In summary, the daily fight without truce to overcome, to achieve liberation, to have, to know, that there should be no more elements of domination, nor exploitation, but rather liberty. In this manner FOIN has inserted the best values of the indigenous movement and of other progressive sectors.''(15)
(14) There are a variety of other national-level indigenous organizations in Ecuador which are not aligned with CONAIE, but have a more class-based orientation (FENOCIN, FEI) or religious orientation (such as FEINE, which is a national-level federation of evangelical indigenous organizations). These organizations, however, play a less prominent role in national and international indigenous politics than CONAIE, have little influence in Amazonia, and with the exception of FENOCIN (previously known as FENOC) have had very little contact with FOIN. (15) From a FOIN archival document entitled, ``Informe que presenta el comite ejecutivo de FOIN al V Congreso Ordinario de delegados llevado en la comunidad ind| gena Limoncocha primero de abril de mil novecientos ochenta '', dated 1 April 1980, (emphasis in original).

598

T Perreault

It is clear, then, that FOIN's struggle is not only one of attaining the material benefits of development (though these, of course, are fundamental to FOIN's goals), but is also aimed at transforming the structures of domination under which indigenous peoples have been subjugated. In this sense, the qualities of liberation and human dignity are as important as equal access to material resources. Indeed, access to those material resources signifies the increased political and cultural rights to which FOIN aspires (Bebbington, 1996; 2000). FOIN's discursive rejection of capitalism and claims to collective rights seem to stand in stark contrast to the imagery discussed above of FOIN as modernizing and developmentalist. It is important to acknowledge, however, that these are not mutually exclusive, contradictory aspects of Quichua identity, but rather two complementary elements of indigenous politics. As Hall (1996b, pages 3 ^ 4) points out, ``identities are never unified and, in late modern times, increasingly fractured and fragmented; never singular but multiply constructed across different, often intersecting and antagonistic, discourses, practices, and positions.'' FOIN's discursive representations of identity, in this sense, are not stable, unchanging, and timeless essences but may be seen as positionings, reflecting historically constituted cultural understandings and relations of power. During the 1980s FOIN continued to work with IERAC to legalize community land claims in the Alto Napo, and worked with other state agencies and national and international NGOs on a variety of development initiatives. With financial, technical, and logistical support from these donors, FOIN carried out projects aimed at agricultural production and marketing, health care, and education. The federation entered into funding relationships with Oxfam, Cultural Survival, the Inter-American Foundation, and the World Wildlife Fund, and environmental conservation projects soon became a vital source of funding for FOIN. By the mid-1980s and continuing into the present, environmental groups, concerned with the preservation of tropical rainforest environments, provided a new idiom and institutional structure through which indigenous organizations such as FOIN could make claims to natural resources and territorial rights. Crucially, these claims were made largely on the grounds of ethnic distinctiveness, and of the discursive linking of identity and place which posits indigenous peoples as uniquely positioned to protect tropical rainforests (Brosius, 1997). In making these arguments indigenous groups and their environmentalist allies are not rejecting development and modernization, but rather are calling for environmentally sustainable forms of development based on culturally specific values and practices (compare Watts, 1998). Rainforest conservation and sustainable development thus provide a conceptual `middle ground' on which the interests of Amazonian indigenous peoples articulate with those of northern environmentalists (Conklin and Graham, 1995). This idea is evoked in a letter from FOIN to the Dutch organization Humanistic Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries. The letter requests funding for the federation's congress in 1992, the same year as the famed `Earth Summit' in Rio de Janeiro, perhaps the high-water mark of international concern for tropical-rainforest protection.(16) The letter states, ``We believe that the best investment for protecting the global resources, which our tropical rainforest produces for the whole planet, is to invest in the strengthening of our institutions and to support the indigenous people of the rainforest who love and sincerely respect our Pacha Mama (Mother Earth).'' Such direct appeal to the international environmentalism of the early 1990s was also evident in the logo that appeared on the stationery of PUMAREN,(17) a resource-management
(16) This letter appears in the 1992 FOIN archives, and is written in English. It was translated from Spanish by a volunteer with the group Global Exchange. (17) PUMAREN is an acronym for Programa de Uso y Manejo de Recursos Naturales (Project for Management and Use of Natural Resources).

`A people with our own identity'

599

and conservation project FOIN administered from 1988 to 1998, with funding from the US NGOs Cultural Survival and the World Wildlife Fund (Macdonald, 1999; n Perreault, 2000). Below a drawing of a tree and a deer were written the words Regio nica, Pulmo n Verde del Mundo (Amazon region, green lung of the world). These Amazo images posit indigenous peoples as particularly well placed to attend to the environmental management necessitated by international conservation agendas. By linking popular international environmental slogans and easily recognizable images to a community-based resource-management project, PUMAREN's logo served to naturalize the relationship between identity, place, and nature (that is, between Quichua people and the Amazon rainforest) and to appeal to the concerns of international environmentalism. This imagery was of similar importance in a statement made to me by a former FOIN president in discussing the linkage between territorial concerns and resource use. He asserted, ``In regard to territories we have them more or less defined, but there are certain problems, no? Now we are trying to produceproduce, but without destroying the forest. We care for the forest. An exploitation of resources, but rationally, sustainably, more attractively. What I think is that wethe indigenous peoplesby nature are ecologists. We have defended nature, we have cared for nature, since birth, by inheritance ... we are the caretakers of the forest, no?'' The former president went on to say, ``For us, the term, the concept of territory, is good, to manage our resources. In general, political terms, this is what we are waiting for: a territory to manage as a people with our own identity ... within our territory. But this is not to say that we want to be another state, no? Within our territory, we want for our culture to strengthen according to our indigenous worldview'' (interview conducted in Tena, 5 June 1998). In this statement, the former leader eloquently links Quichua territorial and resource rights claims with the essentialized characteristics of indigenous peoples as `caretakers of the forest', legitimating the former by appealing to the latter. As Roberto Santana (1995) points out, this type of environmental rhetoric is not a call for environmental management or planning per se, but rather is an ideological and symbolic strategy for claims making. In this way, discursive positionings serve to articulate indigenous identities with nature and place as a way of legitimating resource and political claims. Within the federation's discourse, modernizing values and development are closely linked to notions of environmental management, identity, and citizenship. Similar sentiments were expressed by FOIN's then president, in discussing the federation's role in community development and its connection with a major development program funded by the World Bank and aimed at indigenous peoples: ``Damn, the destruction [of nature] ... . But in this we are promoting care for the forests, to reforest, because ... it is disappearing, no? Then, while there is forest, the rivers, we will continue recovering [culturally]. Then, this is the only fear that we have as Quichua peoples, as indigenous organizations here. We always maintained the forest, and for that reason ... we hope to improve living conditions, perhaps with these projects. Reforestation is one of the ideas they have'' (interview conducted in Tena, 5 February 1999). These statements by FOIN leaders connect notions of development, progress, and modernization with international environmental discourses of rainforest protection. In this view, both development and forest conservation are represented as integral to Quichua identity. Economic development, in this perspective, is something that indigenous peoples merit as citizens of the nation, whereas environmental conservation

600

T Perreault

emanates naturally from Quichua culture and simultaneously preserves the conditions necessary for social and cultural reproduction. Such statements underscore the sense of progressivism pervasive in much of FOIN's discourse. Importantly, however, the symbolic capital of place identity that Amazonian indigenous peoples possess does not exist in a political vacuum. Indeed, indigenous organizations such as FOIN must still maneuver through a profoundly racist labyrinth of state bureaucracies and sedimented ethnic ideologies. By invoking the values and moral authority that inhere in international environmentalisms, indigenous groups are able to form strategic alliances with organizations operating at broader spatial and political scales. Indeed, the participation of indigenous organizations in transnational advocacy networks has helped to restructure the scales of power, not only in Ecuador, but throughout much of Latin America (Perreault, 2000). From its thoroughly modern subject position, FOIN mediates the symbolics of indigenous identity, of what it means to be Quichua in the context of a `modern' national society that is rapidly globalizing and yet in which stark inequalities and racist ideologies persist. Contesting the nation: citizenship, territory, and identity For Ecuadorian indigenous organizations, the practice and discourse of development cannot be separated from questions of political participation, governance, and citizenship. In this sense, development does not depoliticize processes of social transformation, as Ferguson (1990) suggests, but in fact operates in precisely the opposite manner. Development and its interpretation and implementationwhat it means, how it is done, by whom, and to whomare rendered crucial terrains of ideological struggle (compare Van Ausdal, 2001). It is in large part through the idiom of development that indigenous political and cultural organizations in Ecuador articulate identities and ideological positions, and contest official conceptualizations of citizenship and the nation (Radcliffe, 1996; 1999; Radcliffe and Westwood, 1996). Though crucial as a mechanism for forging state integration and national belonging, the meaning of citizenship is always open to negotiation, and as such cannot be reduced to a set of legal entitlements granted by the state (Schild, 1998). Rather, it is more usefully conceived of as an actively constructed identity, which binds political rights with diverse subject positions (Mouffe, 1992; see also Brown, 1997; Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). How, then, does this process of construction occur? What are the cultural, economic, and environmental terrains in which this struggle takes place? What is the role of development in this process? In the case of Ecuadorian indigenous politics the answer to these questions may be found, at least in part, in the practices and discourses of organizations, such as FOIN, that have endeavored to construct new political identities within, rather than outside of, the nation, thereby broadening the traditionally narrow view of political inclusion in Ecuador (compare Warren, 1998). In this sense, FOIN's project, and that of Ecuador's broader indigenous movement, may be characterized as attempting to deepen Ecuadorian democracy, and in so doing to redefine the terms of the political itself (Dagnino, 1998). FOIN's contemporary discourse must be viewed within the context of recent national debate over plurinationalism ( plurinacionalidad )an ideological position promoted by CONAIE and most other indigenous organizations in Ecuador that posits the country as composed of several distinct nationalities (nacionalidades ) and peoples ( pueblos ). Notions of indigenous territories, citizenship, and political autonomy are embedded within this contentious debate (Lucero, 2003; Selverston-Scher, 2000). As debates in Ecuador over plurinationalism gained prominence in the 1990s, reaching a peak during the 1997 ^ 98 constitutional assembly, local and regional indigenous organizations adopted this discourse in an attempt to construct new territorially based

`A people with our own identity'

601

identities, challenging dominant conceptions of citizenship and the nation. Central to these questions is the definitionin the senses of both conceptually identifying and spatially demarcatingof indigenous nationalities, a process that frequently involves the discursive and material linking of territory, citizenship, or nationality to other aspects of Quichua life. Cultural demarcations of nacionalidades and pueblos (distinct groups within a given nationality) correspond to clearly defined territorial claims, and are legitimated by the granting of collective rights to indigenous peoples under the new constitution (CONAIE, 1999; 2001). One former FOIN leader, who is currently involved with bilingual education in Napo province, made the linkage this way in answer to a question about the goals of bilingual education: ``Education should strengthen the Quichua nationality, here in Napo. Strengthen its organization, its culture, its social structure, economically, geographically, no? With all its territory. This, then, is the goal of Intercultural-Bilingual Education.'' Interviewer: ``Then, what is a nationality? What is the difference between a nationality, and a people [pueblo]?'' ``For us, the nationality is a people who have their own culture, their own territory, who manage their own organizational structure, according to their reality. And live within an independent territory between nature and mankind. The power of nature together with the abilities of man, this is part of a nationality. El pueblo is simply the people who live, who inhabit. El pueblo does not take into account the role of language, the role of values, the role of territory. Nationality is something more structured. For this reason, we say that Ecuador is not a nation. It is a state with a national project. Then, `state' means that there are many people, many people, many pueblos, but within it there can be various nationalities'' (interview conducted in Tena, 27 January 1999). Here, then, the speaker embeds the notions of territory, culture, and political organization within the contested notion of nationality, while representing Quichua culture as organically tied to Amazonian nature. In this way, he is challenging official conceptualizations of the state and the `nation' and, by extension, citizenship, signaling an expanded and evolving view of these concepts. Significantly, these statements were made during a conversation about intercultural-bilingual education. Of central importance to my analysis is the fact that intercultural-bilingual education programs are in many respects perceived, experienced, and discussed as a form of development project by Quichua community members (Perreault, 2003a). These programs are directed interventions, coordinated through the state and supported (in part) by transnational funding organizations. In contrast to bilingual education programs in the Peruvian highlands, which have been perceived by Quechua-speaking residents as limiting their ability to participate fully in national society (Garc| a, 2003), such programs in Ecuador carry special significance for FOIN and its members as a source of empowerment, capacity building, and cultural self-determination. But intercultural-bilingual education carries more than symbolic significance. It is a formally institutionalized site of indigenous cultural and political organization, which has expanded its influence spatially to involve Quichua communities throughout the region, and has also contributed in significant ways to the empowerment of the indigenous population. Thus, as is the case with FOIN, intercultural-bilingual education is simultaneously a symbolic and material site of organizational strengthening and consolidation that has allowed Quichua peoples of the Alto Napo to challengeboth discursively and materiallyofficial notions of territory and the nation.

602

T Perreault

Conclusions The view presented here is necessarily partial. The whole of lowland Quichua cultural identity cannot be reduced to the statements of a handful of FOIN leaders. A close reading of FOIN's discourses does, however, provide a useful lens through which to view the ways that the federation mediates processes of development and cultural transformation. Dominant ideologies of democracy and citizenship in Ecuador have failed to create a sense of inclusion and participation among popular sectors such as indigenous groups, a fact that has contributed to an increase in ``symbolic political participation through populist, non-parliamentary politics'' (de la Torre, 1997, page 15). As Carlos de la Torre points out, citizenship in Ecuador has been narrowly conceptualized in terms of voting rights and the limited (and decreasing) granting of state benefits (see also Lucero, 2003; Yashar, 1999). Though the constitutional reform of 1998 sought to include indigenous groups and Afro-Ecuadorians in the political process to a greater extent than was the case previously, in fact this reform has been largely cosmetic and has done little to address the entrenched political and economic power of Ecuador's oligarchy. This condition has only worsened in the context of Ecuador's ongoing political and economic crisis, a fact that was never more apparent than during nationwide protests in January, 2000, and again in January and February, 2001. As in previous demonstrations, indigenous peoples led by CONAIE, along with other indigenous, student, and labor organizations, took to the streets to protest IMF-imposed economic austerity measures. These protests, and the economic deterioration that led to them, called into question the institutions of Ecuadorian democracy, and the state's ability to represent and defend the interests of its own people. In large measure, the protests challenged the state's conceptualization of the nation, and were an attempt to renegotiate the terms of citizenship itself, of what it means to be Ecuadorian in the context of neoliberal reregulation of the state. These events throw into sharp relief the structural violence of deeply rooted social inequity, and the need for careful analyses of the ways that membership in the nation is contested and negotiated. I have argued here that the discourses, practice, and institutions of development are crucial sites for the articulation of symbolic and material struggles. Moreover, it is through the very idiom of development that indigenous organizations such as FOIN contest dominant and exclusionary understandings of national belonging. FOIN's discourse and praxis are aimed in large part at constructing a regional identity, rooted in the spatial parameters of ethnic territory and anchored by a shared Quichua cultural tradition. But to do this FOIN must operate from a fully modern subject position interacting with state agencies, national NGOs, and transnational networks of development, human rights, and environmental organizations. In the contemporary ideological context of plurinationalism in Ecuador, to be a modern Quichua is to have a regional identity as an indigenous nationality, produced through economic development and political organization within (rather than outside of) the nation-state. FOIN's constructions of identity, produced within the context of development and modernization, are largely aimed at asserting land claims and political rights for their constituent members, and in so doing attempt to redefine official understandings of citizenship and national belonging. Importantly, however, the federation's engagement with Ecuadorian nationalism and state-led modernization is not a unitary position of resistance. Although the federation's discourse has at times been oppositional, it has, in other contexts, been conciliatory and accepting, even embracing, of the nationalist project. Within this context, the discourses, practices, and institutions of development play central structuring roles, providing a multiform ideological frame within which the federation negotiates processes of social transformation and contests official understandings of citizenship and the nation. Although the ideologies, institutions, and practices of development do not

`A people with our own identity'

603

determine what indigenous identities are, they do condition the context of those identities, and the language through which they are represented. As I have demonstrated in this paper, FOIN's constructions of identity, citizenship, and nation may be read as a form of what Pratt (1994) refers to as `autoethnography': appropriations of, and responses to, dominant narratives and objectifying knowledges. As with Guaman Poma's New Chronicle, the statements and images examined here are not na| ve representations of the way FOIN believes the world is or ought to be. They are, more accurately, mediations of, and interventions into, the hegemonic and interwoven discourses of nationalist modernization, environmentalism, and ethnicity. Crucially, FOIN's autoethnographic discourse is produced largely through the idiom of international development, and incorporates elements of dominant narratives of development and citizenship in order to renegotiate the place of indigenous peoples within these narratives. In contrast to Ferguson's (1990) assertion that development functions as an `antipolitics machine', the discourses, practices, and institutions of development are in fact highly politicized and contested by indigenous organizations such as FOIN. For this reason, development is more usefully conceptualized as a ``crucible of cultural politics'', in which symbolic and material struggles are articulated and negotiated (Moore, 2000). The diverse, often contradictory processes through which this contestation occurs are most fruitfully examined through the fine-grained analysis of specific practices, discourses, and forms of organization that I have presented here. I believe that such a conceptualization, and the analyses that it allows, may lead to a better understanding of organizations like FOIN and of the liberatory potential they possess for mediating processes of development.
Acknowledgements. The research on which this paper is based was supported by grants from Fulbright-IIE and the Inter-American Foundation, and the Department of Geography, Syracuse University. I would like to thank the people of FOIN for their assistance and patient cooperation. I am deeply indebted to Humberto Grefa, Marcelo Grefa, and their families for their kindness. Also, Sarah Radcliffe, Jim Glassman, Laurel Smith, and four anonymous reviewers generously offered comments on earlier drafts of this paper that led to its substantial improvement. Any factual errors or misinterpretations remain, of course, my own responsibility. References Alvarez S, Dagnino E, Escobar A, 1998, ``Introduction: the cultural and political in Latin American social movements'', in Cultures of Politics, Politics of Cultures: Re-visioning Latin American Social Movements Eds S E Alvarez, E Dagnino, A Escobar (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 1 ^ 29 Bebbington A, 1996, ``Movements, modernizations and markets: indigenous organizations and indigenous strategies in Ecuador'', in Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements Eds R Peet, M Watts (Routledge, London) pp 86 ^ 109 Bebbington A, 2000, ``Reencountering development: livelihood transitions and place transformations in the Andes'' Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90 495 ^ 520 Bebbington A, 2002, ``Geographies of development in Latin America?'', in Latin America in the Twenty-first Century: Challenges and Solutions Ed. G Knapp (University of Texas Press, Austin, TX) pp 105 ^ 148 Bebbington A, Thiele G, 1993 NGOs and the State in Latin America: Rethinking Roles in Sustainable Agricultural Development (Routledge, London) n G, Trujillo J, Torres V H, 1992 Actores de una Bebbington A J, Carrasco H, Peralbo L, Ramo cada Ganada: Tribus, Comunidades y Campesinos en la Modernidad [Actors of a decade De won: tribes, communities, and peasants in modernity] (Comunidec, Abya-Yala, Quito) n G, Trujillo J, Torres V H, 1993, ``Fragile lands, Bebbington A J, Carrasco H, Peralbo L, Ramo fragile organizations: Indian organizations and the politics of sustainability in Ecuador'' Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 18 179 ^ 196 Bonnett A, 2000 White Identities: Historical and International Perspectives (Prentice-Hall, Harlow, Essex) Bourdieu P, 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

604

T Perreault

Brosius P, 1997, ``Endangered forest, endangered people: environmentalist representations of indigenous knowledge'' Human Ecology 25(1) 47 ^ 69 Brown M P, 1997 RePlacing Citizenship: AIDS Activism and Radical Democracy (Guilford Press, New York) Brysk A, 2000 From Tribal Village to Global Village: Indian Rights and International Relations in Latin America (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA) re J, 2001, ``Neoliberalism, economic crisis and popular mobilization in Ecuador'', in Carrie Miraculous Metamorphoses: The Neoliberalization of Latin American Populism ndez Jilberto, B Hogenboom (Zed Books, London) pp 132 ^ 149 Ed. J Demmers, A E Ferna n CONAIE, 1999 Las Nacionalidades Ind| genas y sus Derechos Colectivos en la Constitucio [The indigenous nationalities and their collective rights in the constitution] Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador, Avenida de los Granades 2553, Quito, Ecuador n Nacional e CONAIE, 2001 Las Nacionalidades y Pueblos y sus Derechos en la Legislacio Internacional [The nationalities and peoples and their rights in national and international legislation] Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador, Avenida de los Granades 2553, Quito, Ecuador Conklin B A, Graham L R, 1995,``The shifting middle ground: Amazonian Indians and eco-politics'' American Anthropologist 97 695 ^ 710 Cooper F, Packard R, 1998, ``Introduction'', in International Development and the Social Sciences: Essays on the History and Politics of Knowledge Eds F Cooper, R Packard (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA) pp 1 ^ 41 Cowen M P, Shenton R W, 1996 Doctrines of Development (Routledge, London) Cowen M P, Shenton R W, 1998, ``Agrarian doctrines of development: part 1'' Journal of Peasant Studies 25 49 ^ 76 Dagnino E, 1998, ``Culture, citizenship, and democracy: changing discourses and practices of the Latin American Left'', in Cultures of Politics, Politics of Cultures: Re-visioning Latin American Social Movements Eds S E Alvarez, E Dagnino, A Escobar (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 33 ^ 63 de la Torre C, 1997, ``Populism and democracy: political discourses and cultures in contemporary Ecuador'' Latin American Perspectives 23(3) 12 ^ 24 Diskin M, 1991, ``Ethnic discourse and the challenge to anthropology: the Nicaraguan case'', in Nation-states and Indians in Latin America Eds G Urban, J Sherzer (University of Texas Press, Austin, TX) pp 156 ^ 180 Escobar A, 1992, ``Planning'', in The Development Dictionary Ed.W Sachs (Zed Books, London) pp 132 ^ 145 Escobar A, 1995 Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Escobar A, 1999, ``After nature: steps to an antiessentialist political ecology'' Current Anthropology 40(1) 1 ^ 30 Ferguson J, 1990 The Anti-politics Machine: ``Development,'' Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Garc| a M E, 2003, ``The politics of community: education, indigenous rights, and ethnic mobilization in Peru'' Latin American Perspectives 30(1) 71 ^ 96 Garc| a Canclini N, 1995 Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN) Gupta A, 1998 Postcolonial Developments: Agriculture in the Making of Modern India (Duke University Press, Durham, NC) Hall S, 1990, ``Cultural identity and diaspora'', in Identity: Community, Culture, Difference Ed. J Rutherford (Lawrence and Wishart, London) pp 222 ^ 237 Hall S, 1996a ``On postmodernism and articulation: an interview with Stuart Hall'', in Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies Eds D Morley, K H Chen (Routledge, London) pp 131 ^ 150 Hall S, 1996b ``Introduction: who needs `identity'?'', in Questions of Cultural Identity Eds S Hall, P du Gay (Sage, London) pp 1 ^ 17 Hoselitz B F, 1952, ``Non-economic barriers to economic development'' Economic Development and Cultural Change 1(1) 8 ^ 21 Hudelson J E, 1981 The Expansion and Development of Quichua Transitional Culture in the Upper Amazon Basin PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York

`A people with our own identity'

605

Keck M, Sikkink K, 1998 Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY) Laclau E, Mouffe C, 1985 Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (Verso, London) Li T M, 2000, ``Articulating indigenous identity in Indonesia: resource politics and the tribal slot'' Comparative Studies in Society and History 42(1) 149 ^ 179 Lucero J A, 2003, ``Locating the `Indian problem': community and nationality in Ecuadorian indigenous politics'' Latin American Perspectives 30(1) 23 ^ 48 Macdonald T J, 1999 Ethnicity and Culture Amidst New ``Neighbors'' (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA) Moore D S, 2000, ``The crucible of cultural politics: reworking `development' in Zimbabwe's eastern highlands'' American Ethnologist 26 654 ^ 689 Mouffe C, 1992, ``Democratic citizenship and the political community'', in Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community Ed. C Mouffe (Verso, London) pp 225 ^ 239 Ortner S B, 1995, ``Resistance and the problem of ethnographic refusal'' Comparative Studies in Society and History 37(1) 173 ^ 193 Perreault T A, 2000 Shifting Ground: Agrarian Change, Political Mobilization, and Identity Construction Among Quichua of the Alto Napo, Ecuadorian Amazonia PhD dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO Perreault T A, 2001, ``Developing identities: indigenous mobilization, rural livelihoods, and resource access in Ecuadorian Amazonia'' Ecumene 8 381 ^ 413 Perreault T A, 2003a, ``Changing places: transnational networks, ethnic politics, and community development in the Ecuadorian Amazon'' Political Geography (in press) Perreault T A, 2003b, ``Making space: community organization, agrarian change, and the politics of scale in the Ecuadorian Amazon'' Latin American Perspectives 30(1) 97 ^ 122 Perreault T A, Bebbington A J, Carroll T, 1998, ``Indigenous irrigation organizations and the formation of social capital in northern highland Ecuador'' Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers Yearbook 24 1 ^ 16 Pigg S L, 1992, ``Inventing social categories through place: social representations and development in Nepal'' Comparative Studies in Society and History 34 491 ^ 513 Pratt M L, 1994, ``Transculturation and autoethnography: Peru, 1615/1980'', in Colonial Discourse/ Postcolonial Theory Eds F Barker, P Hulme, M Iverson (Manchester University Press, Manchester) pp 24 ^ 46 Radcliffe S A, 1996, ``Imaginative geographies, postcolonialism, and national identities: contemporary discourses of the nation in Ecuador'' Ecumene 3 23 ^ 42 Radcliffe S A, 1999, ``Reimagining the nation: community, difference, and national identities among indigenous and mestizo provincials in Ecuador'' Environment and Planning A 31 37 ^ 52 Radcliffe S A, Westwood S, 1996 Remaking the Nation: Place, Identity, and Politics in Latin America (Routledge, London) Rahier J M, 1998, ``Blackness, the racial/spatial order, migrations, and Miss Ecuador 1995 ^ 96'' American Anthropologist 100 421 ^ 430 Rogers M, 1995 Images of Power and the Power of Images: Identity and Place in Ecuadorian Shamanism PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL Rogers M, 1996, ``Beyond authenticity: conservation, tourism, and the politics of representation in the Ecuadorian Amazon'' Identities 3(1 and 2) 73 ^ 125 Rostow WW, 1960 The Stages of Economic Growth (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Sachs W, 1992 The Development Dictionary (Zed Books, London) Santana R, 1995 Ciudadanos en la Etnicidad? Indios en la Pol| tica o la Pol| tica de los Indios [Citizens in ethnicity? Indians in politics or the politics of Indians] (Ediciones Abya-Yala, Quito) Santos Granero F, Barclay F, 2000 Tamed Frontiers: Economy, Society, and Civil Rights in Upper Amazonia (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) Schild V, 1998, ``New subjects of rights? Women's movements and the construction of citizenship in the `new democracies' '', in Cultures of Politics, Politics of Cultures: Re-visioning Latin American Social Movements Eds S E Alvarez, E Dagnino, A Escobar (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 93 ^ 117 Selverston-Scher M H, 2000 Ethno-politics in Ecuador: Indigenous Rights and the Strengthening of Democracy (Lynne Reinner, Boulder, CO)

606

T Perreault

Shiva V, 1989 The Violence of the Green Revolution: Ecological Degradation and Political Conflict in Punjab (Research Foundation for Science and Ecology, Dehra Dun) Smith C, 1997, ``The symbolics of blood: Mestizaje in the Americas'' Identities 3 495 ^ 521 Stutzman R, 1981 El mestizaje : an all-inclusive ideology of exclusion'', in Cultural Transformations and Ethnicity in Modern Ecuador Ed. N E Whitten Jr (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL) pp 45 ^ 94 Swyngedouw E, 1997a, ``Excluding the Other: the production of scale and scaled politics'', in Geographies of Economies Eds R Lee, J Wills (Arnold, London) pp 167 ^ 176 Swyngedouw E, 1997b, ``Neither global nor local: `glocalization' and the scale of politics'', in Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local Ed. K R Cox (Guilford Press, New York) pp 137 ^ 166 Van Ausdal S, 2001,``Development and discourse among the Maya of southern Belize'' Development and Change 32 577 ^ 606 Warren K B, 1998 Indigenous Movements and their Critics: Pan-Maya Activism in Guatemala (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Watts M J, 1998, ``Nature as artifice and artefact'', in Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millennium Eds B Braun, N Castree (Routledge, London) pp 243 ^ 268 Watts M J, 2001, ``Petro-violence: community, extraction, and political ecology of a mythic commmodity'', in Violent Environments Eds N L Peluso, M J Watts (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY) pp 189 ^ 212 Whitten N E, 1976 Sacha Runa: Ethnicity and Adaptation of Ecuadorian Jungle Quichua (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL) Whitten N E, 1981, ``Amazonia today at the base of the Andes: an ethnic interface in ecological, social, and ideological perspectives'', in Cultural Transformations and Ethnicity in Modern Ecuador Ed. N E Whitten (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL) pp 121 ^ 161 Whitten N E, 1985 Sicuanga Runa: The Other Side of Development in Amazonian Ecuador (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL) Yapa L, 1996a, ``Improved seeds and constructed scarcity'', in Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements (Routledge, London) pp 69 ^ 85 Yapa L, 1996b, ``What causes poverty? A postmodern view'' Annals of the Association of American Geographers 86 707 ^ 728 Yashar D, 1996, ``Indigenous protest and democracy in Latin America'', in Constructing Democratic Governance: Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1990s Eds J I Dom| nguez, A F Lowenthal (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD) pp 87 ^ 122 Yashar D, 1998, ``Contesting citizenship: indigenous movements and democracy in Latin America'' Comparative Politics 31(1) 23 ^ 42 Yashar D, 1999, ``Democracy, indigenous movements, and the postliberal challenge in Latin America'' World Politics 52 76 ^ 104 Yu dice G, 1998, ``The globalization of culture and the new civil society'', in Cultures of Politics, Politics of Cultures: Re-visioning Latin American Social Movements Eds S E Alvarez, E Dagnino, A Escobar (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 353-379 Yu dice G, 2001, ``From hybridity to policy: for a purposeful cultural studies'', editor's introduction in Consumers and Citizens: Globalization and Multicultural Conflict N Garc| a Canclini (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN) pp ix ^ xxxviii

2003 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain