This article analyzes the experiences of the small Shuar community of Kenkuim (Congüime) in the Ecuadorian Amazon that since 2016 carries out gold mining through the communitarian company Exploken Minera. The case is unique in South America, not only for being the only example of indigenous mining granted formal state concession, but also for its green profile, without the usage of chemicals or heavy metals. Within a setting of expanding extractivism conditioned by global capitalism and a theoretical framework of a decolonial and postcapitalist approach to sustainability, this ethnographic study deals with the expressions of resistance and adaptation of the Kenkuim community and how socio-cultural, ecological, and economic values are articulated by Shuar actors in relation to the new indigenous mining project. The results indicate that this mining experiment constitutes a meaningful alternative to destructive extractivismin line with decolonial and postcapitalist reasoning.

En este artículo, se analizan las experiencias de la pequeña comunidad Shuar de Kenkuim (Congüime) en la Amazonía ecuatoriana que, desde 2016, lleva a cabo la extracción de oro mediante la empresa comunitaria Exploken Minera. El caso es excepcional en Sudamérica, no solo por ser la única minería indígena con una concesión estatal formal, sino también por su perfil verde, sin el uso de productos químicos o metales pesados. Dentro del contexto de un creciente extractivismo condicionado por el capitalismo global y un marco teórico de una aproximación decolonial y poscapitalista a la sostenibilidad, en este estudio etnográfico se tratan las estrategias de resistencia y adaptación de la comunidad Kenkuim y cómo los valores socioculturales, ecológicos y económicos son articulados por los actores Shuar respecto al nuevo proyecto minero indígena. Los resultados indican que este experimento constituye una alternativa significativa frente al extractivismo destructivo y como un proyecto coherente con las lógicas decoloniales y poscapitalistas.

This chapter deals with an inevitable form of subjectivity in field-oriented research on and with ethnically defined peoples in Latin America. It asks whether ethnographers can enter a research field marked by historical injustices and highly asymmetric power struggles without losing the standpoint of value-free outsiders. We argue that scholars in the field are not disconnected from local cultural and institutional settings, they cannot expect to conduct fieldwork without a substantial degree of subjectivity. Theoretically, a distinction is made between fieldwork and work in the field, emphasising the often-dual position of researchers: as scholars and activists. We argue that an activist stance is sometimes necessary, though stressing that the primary position must always be that of the scholar—particularly in those highly conflictive fields which often characterise the societal periphery of the Global South. Ethnographers are not merely spectators. Interpretations and conclusions will be affected by the passions and ideological positions encountered in the field. Moreover, ethnographers frequently enter the field with worldviews determined beforehand, a predisposition that may generate misunderstandings, exaggerations or even prejudice. Methodologically, the text draws on decades of fieldwork on indigenous peoples´ struggles and conflicts in Bolivia, Ecuador and Guatemala. The text problematises the intricate intersection between objec-tivity and research, on the one side, and trust and subjectivity, on the other. The authors conclude by stressing the importance of upholding an “objectivity” that does not clash with the basic premises of a communal narrative rooted in historical experiences and structural perceptions of the world. Situational and relational subjectivity is thus inevitable, but that does not imply that the ambition of academic objectivity must be sacrificed. Such objectivity should not be conflated with “neutrality”, lexically speaking.

Desde 2016, la comunidad indígena Shuar de Congüime en la Amazoníaecuatoriana tiene la concesión para extraer oro en su territorio mediantesu empresa comunitaria Exploken Minera. Con su misión de una mineríasocio-ecológicamente responsable, invirtiendo los ingresos en la comunidad ysin usar químicos o metales pesados, este modelo único se contrasta con la extracciónminera transnacional e ilegal en territorios indígenas. Con inspiraciónteórica y metodológica de la ecología política, justicia ambiental y el post-desarrollo,así como la conceptualización de utopías reales, este estudio etnográficotrata de las experiencias de gobernanza y justicia socioambiental de la empresacomunitaria y los dilemas, disputas y desafíos que emergen en la comunidadcon esta nueva situación. El resultado indica que varios desafíos estructuralessiguen sin resolverse. Si bien las experiencias de responsabilidad socioecológicade Exploken constituyen una opción ante el extractivismo destructivo yconsiderando la mejora de las condiciones de vida de muchas familias Shuar,surgieron nuevas tensiones sociales en Congüime, incluso transformacionesde las estructuras de poder social.

Since 2016, the Shuar indigenous community of Congüime inthe Ecuadorian Amazon has held the gold mining concession in its territorythrough the community company Exploken Minera. With its mission of sociallyand ecologically responsible mining, investing the incomes in the communityand without using chemicals or heavy metals, this unique model contrastswith transnational and illegal mining in indigenous territories. The presentethnographic study, which draws theoretical and methodological inspirationfrom political ecology, environmental justice, post-development and the conceptualizationof real utopias, deals with the experiences of socio-environmentalgovernance and justice of the Shuar mining company, and the dilemmas,disputes and challenges that emerge in the community in this unprecedentedsituation. The result indicates that structural challenges remain unsolved.While Exploken's experiments in socio-ecological responsibility constitute analternative to destructive extractivism, and considering the improved livingconditions enjoyed by many Shuar families, new social tensions have emergedin Congüime, including transformations of social power structures.

This article analyses the contentious liaisons between the indigenous movement and the state in Ecuador during the government of Alianza PAIS under the presidency of Rafael Correa (2007-2017). The research question examines to which measure, how and why the shift from neoliberal to leftist administrations could have affected the principal strategic repertoire of the indigenous movement. Leaning on a political economy approach and social movement theorizing, and accentuating the relative power balance between the indigenous movement and the state, it focuses on indigenous oppositional strategies and the ambivalent attitude of the state regarding participatory democracy and the rights of the indigenous peoples. By contrasting this period with the neoliberal 1990s – considered the heyday of the indigenous struggle – we examine contemporary strategic responses of the movement amidst the new political setting characterized by hyper-presidentialism and a systematic effort to de-corporatize the state. A central finding is that, while retaining its powerful organizational network which could be reactivated during critical situations, the indigenous movement weakened in relation to the 1990s. This relative decline is manifested in three types of social movement relationships: between leaders and grassroots (mobilizing capacity); between the movement and its alliance partners (alliance politics); and between the movement and the legal institutional terrain of the state (institutional participation). 

Este artículo analiza las relaciones conflictivas entre el movimiento indígena y el Estado en Ecuador durante el gobierno de Alianza PAIS cuando ejercía la presidencia Rafael Correa, (2007-2017). La pregunta de investigación es la medida en la cual, cómo y por qué el desplazamiento desde el neoliberalismo hacia la izquierda pudo afectar los principales repertorios de estrategias del movimiento indígena. Desde un enfoque de economía política y de las teorías de los movimientos sociales y considerando los cambios en el balance de poder entre el movimiento indígena y el Estado, el artículo se enfoca en las estrategias de oposición de los indígenas y en la actitud ambivalente del Estado respecto a la democracia participativa y a los derechos de los pueblos indígenas. En contraste con los años neoliberales (1990s) que fueron considerados los de mayor influencia de la lucha indígena, examinamos las estrategias contemporáneas del movimiento en medio de las nuevas circunstancias políticas caracterizadas por el hiper-presidencialismo y un sistemático esfuerzo de descorporativización del Estado. Un hallazgo central del trabajo es que, aunque conserva la potencia de su poderosa red organizativa, que le permite reactivarse en coyunturas críticas, el movimiento indígena se debilitó en comparación con los años 1990. Este declive relativo se manifiesta en tres campos: la relación entre los líderes y las bases (capacidad de movilización); la relación entre el movimiento y sus aliados (la política de alianzas); y la relación entre el movimiento y el terreno institucional del Estado (participación institucional). 

This study deals with the tensions and contradictions between resource governance, welfare policies, and the constitutionally recognized rights of nature and the indigenous peoples in Bolivia and Ecuador. We have identified a certain reductionism in current debates on these issues and propose a more systematic analytical focus on class and the class-ethnicity duality, as expressed in historical and contemporary indigenous struggles, and also confirmed via our ethnographic material. Drawing on the double bind as expressed in Joseph Heller's Catch-22 wherein the protagonists face situations in which they do not have any choice to achieve a net gain, this article centres on how national governments have to choose between the protections of rights - in this case ethnic and environmental rights - and welfare provision financed by extractive revenues. From the perspective of ecologically concerned indigenous actors, the Catch-22 is articulated in the choice or compromise between universal welfarism on the one hand, and ethno-environmental concerns on the other hand. The article draws primarily on ecosocialist arguments and on indigenous-culturalist perspectives on Good Life (Sumak Kawsay or Vivir Bien). A central finding is the existence of awareness among involved actors - oppositional movements and government authorities - that the Catch-22 quandary and joint class-ethnic concerns are unavoidable ingredients in their discourses, struggles, and understandings of Good Life.

Ecuador in times of the Rafael Correa government constitutes a prime example of the paradox of environmental conflict, in which all involved actors claim to represent the true vanguard concerning safeguarding of the environment and human conditions. The country presents the ecologically most progressive constitution in the world and also incorporates far-reaching recognition of indigenous peoples' rights. Notwithstanding, the economy remains reliant on extractivism and the government argues that the revenues of extractive industries benefit the common good. Anchored in a distinction between environmentalism and ecologism, this article identifies and problematizes dominant narratives among the actors of the contentious discursive scenarios, and analyses how the state and its ecological-indigenous opposition aim to position themselves within the political conflict. The central questions are: How are eco-progressive politics perceived, defined and expressed in this setting of an intercultural and plurinational society economically reliant on natural resource extraction? Which values, interests and ontological assumptions are at stake and how are these expressed in the discursive struggle? The research is based on several years of ethnographic fieldwork, combined with critical reading of the previous literature and discourse analysis. The article contributes to politico-environmental debates in Ecuador and beyond and shows that environmental struggle is entangled in broader political disputes conditioned by global economic structures. It likewise communicates with debates on argumentative discourse and illustrates that the same core arguments can constitute the argumentative basis of rivalling actors in political struggles, thus emphasizing the centrality of the contextual framing amid ontological divides in contentious discursive settings.

A partir de 2008, com a promulgação de uma nova Constituição, o Equador se tornou formalmente um Estado Plurinacional e Intercultural, resultado de décadas de lutas dos povos indígenas. Desde então, um dos desafios centrais das organizações indígenas trata das visões e modelos para a implementação prática e institucional do Estado Plurinacional. Existem diferentes interpretações e posturas sobre a plurinacionalidade e a interculturalidade dos atores indígenas. Problematizar-se-á como se expressam essas posições internamente, dentro da organização, e como se expressam externamente. Refere-se a este segundo processo externo como o diálogo deliberativo intercultural. O objetivo principal do presente texto é analiticamente problematizar os desafios e dilemas associados ao projeto de Estado Plurinacional a partir da perspectiva dos povos indígenas. Na estrutura teórica se destacam as contribuições sobre democracia deliberativa em sociedades divididas e/ou multiétnicas. A pergunta investigativa principal é: Como se refletem as complexidades do processo de implementação do Estado Plurinacional e Intercultural nos discursos dos atores envolvidos? O projeto plurinacional se inseriu contextualmente em uma relação complexa entre a territorialidade e a autoidentificação étnica. Enfatizamos a centralidade da territorialidade na indigeneidade e como estratégia nos processos organizativos e discursivos das organizações indígenas. Nessas disputas discursivas sobre a territorialidade, diferentes grupos indígenas se posicionam segundo sua relação histórica com a sociedade branco-mestiça. De tal maneira se constroem temporalidades diferentes desde a territorialidade. Metodologicamente, além da leitura crítica da literatura existente sobre o tema central do estudo, a presente investigação tem como base o trabalho etnográfico no Equador no qual se realizaram centenas de entrevistas entre 2001 e 2016 com políticos, intelectuais e porta-vozes das organizações indígenas.

The Bolivian constitution of 2009 has been classified as one of the most progressive in the world regarding indigenous rights. The indigenous principles of Suma Qamaña/Vivir Bien/Good Living on the harmonious relationship between humans and nature are established in the constitution. Nonetheless, these rights clash with the constitutionally recognised rights of the nation state to extract and commercialise natural resources (mainly hydrocarbons and mining) under the banner of redistributive justice, welfare reforms and the common good, in this study labelled the dilemma of extractive development. The article is based on ethnographic fieldwork and combines a political economy perspective on the extractive dilemma, while similarly examining the tensions between ethnically defined rights in relation to broader human rights in terms of values and norms related to welfare and conditions of living. The ethnic identity is multifaceted in Bolivia. Large segments of the indigenous population prefer to identify in class terms. The class-ethnicity tensions have altered throughout history, according to changing socio-economic, cultural and political settings. A central argument is that, during Evo Morales' presidency, class-based human rights in practice tend to be superior to the ethnically defined rights, as a reflection of the dilemma of extractive development.