2017
DOI: 10.1590/s0104-71832017000200008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A brutidade entre vaqueiros e búfalos no baixo Araguari – Amapá

Abstract: Resumo: O presente artigo aborda a atividade do vaqueiro no trabalho com o búfalo do pântano (Bubalus bubalis) em uma região de várzea amazônica a partir de pesquisa etnográfica. Em diálogo com o debate sobre a domesticação, primeiramente descrevo alguns aspectos do trabalho dos vaqueiros com os rebanhos de búfalos, como dobrar, derrubar e marcar o gado. Ao considerar essas atividades, destaco um termo que aparece constantemente na descrição que vaqueiros fazem dos búfalos e de seu trabalho com eles, o bruto. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 6 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In other words, through an analysis of these physical structures and their agentive potentialities, we can better understand the oscillation between "cultures of control" and "cultures of reciprocity" (Anderson 2014) that supposedly permeate different systems of domestication, moving beyond the focus usually afforded to one or the other relational modality. This perspective, as I see it, converges with that of other contemporary researchers who have underscored the ethnographic importance of technical objects and material infrastructures in mediating interactions between humans and nonhumans (Sautchuk 2016;Segata 2017;Stoeckli 2017), as well as that between the landscape and its surrounding medium as aspects of the process of domestication (Ingold 2000;Leach 2007;Wilson 2007; Stépanoff e Vigne 2019). Finally, my approach in this article is also inspired by authors linked to the Maussian anthropology of techniques tradition (Akrich 1987;Lemonnier 2012;Descola 2002), which focus on the indissolubility of technical, social and political processes, endowing technical objects, their patterns of manufacture, use and selection, with great heuristical value for the social sciences in general.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 72%
“…In other words, through an analysis of these physical structures and their agentive potentialities, we can better understand the oscillation between "cultures of control" and "cultures of reciprocity" (Anderson 2014) that supposedly permeate different systems of domestication, moving beyond the focus usually afforded to one or the other relational modality. This perspective, as I see it, converges with that of other contemporary researchers who have underscored the ethnographic importance of technical objects and material infrastructures in mediating interactions between humans and nonhumans (Sautchuk 2016;Segata 2017;Stoeckli 2017), as well as that between the landscape and its surrounding medium as aspects of the process of domestication (Ingold 2000;Leach 2007;Wilson 2007; Stépanoff e Vigne 2019). Finally, my approach in this article is also inspired by authors linked to the Maussian anthropology of techniques tradition (Akrich 1987;Lemonnier 2012;Descola 2002), which focus on the indissolubility of technical, social and political processes, endowing technical objects, their patterns of manufacture, use and selection, with great heuristical value for the social sciences in general.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 72%