Theorizing Reciprocity: Andean Cooperation and the Reproduction of Community in Highland Bolivia

Abstract

R e s u m e n Los estudios andinos han sido cuajado, en gran parte, por la noción compartida de la reciprocidad como un elemento central de la cultura indígena andina, y la reciprocidad (ayni) continúa ser tanto como una práctica activa de las comunidades andinas y una forma idealizada en los movimientos políticos contemporáneos. Sin embargo, los usos de ayni en los discursos politicos contemporáneos han sido criticadas fuertemente como esencialista, estático y anticuado. En este trabajo, se propone una nueva teorización de la reciprocidad andina como una práctica económica-moral-simbólico que se reproduce socialmente a través de las prácticas cotidiana. Re-imaginando la reciprocidad de esta manera nos permite ver cómo la reciprocidad andina es una forma de interración dinámica y cambiante que sirve los propósitoséticos, simbólicos y económicos, y por lo tanto evita tratar la reciprocidad andina como un artefacto tradicional. Basándose en extenso trabajo de campo etnográfico en tres comunidades del altiplano boliviano, este trabajo propone que la interacción recíproca constituye un sitio importante donde las comunidades andinas sean reproducido. A b s t r a c tAndean Studies cohered, in large part, around the shared notion of reciprocity as a central element of indigenous Andean culture, and reciprocity (ayni) continues both as an active practice among Andean communities and an idealized form of human interaction that is called upon in political and other movements. However, the uses of ayni in contemporary political discourses have been critiqued as essentializing and antiquated. This article proposes a re-theorization of reciprocity as a moralsymbolic economic practice that is socially reproduced through the material practices of 514J o u r n a l o f L a t i n A m e r i c a n a n d C a r i b b e a n A n t h r o p o l o g y Theorizing Reciprocity 515Theorizing Reciprocity 517

The key role of community inLearning by Observing and Pitching Into family and community endeavours (El papel clave de la comunidad enAprender por medio de Observar y Acomedirseen las actividades de la familia y la comunidad)

“…The relation of LOPI’s community organization (Facet 1) and LOPI’s interpersonal forms of engagement (Facet 3) are clear in the community organization of collaborative decision-making, communal work (e.g., tequio ), and economies built on reciprocity that are traditional and remain common in many Indigenous communities of the Americas (Flores et al, 2015; Walsh-Dilley, 2017). For example, in a Tzeltal community in the state of Chiapas, Mexico, ‘Consensus is the heart of their form of local governance’ (p. 68, Speed, 2006).…”

Collaboration at a microscale: Cultural differences in family interactions

“…Studies of community organisation report collaborative structure of everyday practices, language, and work in a number of Indigenous communities of the Americas (Cajete, 1994; Erickson & Mohatt, 1982; Flores et al, 2015; Good Eshelman, 2013; Lorente Fernández, 2010; Maldonado Alvarado, 2015; Urrieta, 2014, 2015; Walsh‐Dilley, 2017). Multi‐generational community groups in Indigenous communities of the Americas often collaborate in organising events such as ceremonies (Corona, 2011; Pelletier, 1970) and even classrooms (Barnhardt, 1982).…”

“…This is referred to in many Mexican communities as being acomedida/o (López et al, 2012(López et al, , 2015 and in Cherokee communities as Gadugi, ᎦᏚᎩ -'People coming together as one and working to help one another', https:// chero kee.web.unc.edu/wp-conte nt/uploa ds/sites/ 22035/ 2020/02/Chero kee-Commu nity-Values.pdf). The value system of Gadugi of joining in, synchronising with one's community, seeing, and helping with work without being asked, is among the most sacred values -spiritual laws -that make Cherokee people Cherokee (Dayton & Rogoff, 2016; see also Cajete, 1994;Walsh-Dilley, 2017).…”

Trajectories of Vulnerability of Rural Territories in the Ecuadorian Andes: a Comparative Analysis

“…Moreover, a large mobility of individuals allowed them to take advantage of the potential of several ecological levels and thus to achieve their subsistence (Murra, 1975, Oberem, 1981. Their social organization, built on mutual aid (Mayer, 2002;Ferraro, 2004;Lyle 2017), was also decisive for going beyond the constraints of the mountain environment by promoting reciprocal exchanges of work or the cultivation of collective spaces that had positive effects on agricultural production (Alberti and Mayer ,1974;Lyle and Smith 2014;Walsh-Dilley, 2017). However, from the sixteenth century onward, the control of the indigenous populations by the colonial authority led to the displacement of rural labor for work in mines and haciendas.…”