This article has two objectives. In the first part, I present a critical overview of the extensive anthropological literature that may be deemed “phenomenological.” Following this critique, which is built up around a classification into four different varieties of phenomenological anthropology, I discuss the relationship between phenomenological anthropology and the ontological turn (OT). Contrary to received wisdom within the anthropological discipline, I suggest that OT has several things in common with the phenomenological project. For the same reason, I argue, it (...) is not accurate to posit OT and phenomenology as opposing or antagonistic projects, as they are often depicted among critics and advocates of OT alike. On the contrary, I go as far as suggesting, OT may be understood as one of the most concerted attempts anthropology has produced to realize a distinctly anthropological version of Husserl’s method of phenomenological bracketing, namely what could be called the ontological epoché. (shrink)

In this paper, I defend the claim that addressing dominating ontologies is crucial for achieving Indigenous self-determination. Consequently, the struggle for Indigenous self-determination comprises not only an engagement with political practices, structures, and institutions, but also with political ontology. I first argue that implementing Indigenous self-determination requires an engagement with political ontology. I then introduce Iris Young’s conception of self-determination as non-domination as a way to engage with diverging ontologies within the political framework of federalism. In the final section of (...) the paper, I present two constructive proposals concerning how Indigenous peoples and settler states can establish an ontology at the federal level that facilitates Indigenous self-determination. (shrink)

This article begins by examining the status of “difference” in representations of perspectivist cosmologies, which are themselves often represented as radically different to Euro-American cosmologi...

Este artículo propone la necesidad de realizar una revisión teórica sobre la actual asunción epistemológica que establece a la dicotomía naturaleza-sociedad como piedra angular de una cosmovisión amplia para contextos occidentales. Se rebaten aquellas perspectivas antropológicas que dan por sentado que, en estos espacios, de manera genérica y sin matices, la práctica social y las ideas no se construyen de forma vinculada al medio, cayendo bajo la creencia de que la naturaleza existe ajena a la voluntad humana. Discutiremos el ingenuo (...) esencialismo etnológico que posiciona al naturalismo como modelo central de la cosmovisión socio-europea, el cual es caracterizado por patrones dualistas que han permitido configurar, al mismo tiempo y por contraposición a este, paradigmas monistas de relaciones socioecológicas en otras partes del mundo. (shrink)