Indigenism

One of the main challenges set by economic globalization is that of the globalization of the indigenous question. The latter can be stated as follows : "how can the claims made by aboriginal peoples be dealt with?" The processes of economic, political and social globalization could not take place without the diversity brought by indigenous peoples. But speaking of indigenism in a discussion about ongoing globalizations points to the encounter of two worlds that has characterized the modern history of the West.

In its narrow sense, "indigenism" refers to political, social and artistic movements aiming at giving a new value to everything that relates to the indigenous world. In its more general sense it refers to cultural and political trends that look into indigenous "types" and "relations". In its universal sense, it describes the relations between aboriginal peoples and other peoples : hence the encounter of two worlds. In the latter sense, indigenism implies a connection to the dynamics of globalizations. It is certain that the encounter with foreign cultures has increased the incentive for a reassertion of global ideas and of relations between different peoples. The "Indian" identitary reassertion of the self and of nature is a constant in History, and the different senses of indigenism have run parallel to the development of the concept of globalization. In 1600, an identitary representation (that defines Indians as barbarous, cruel, inhumane, aboriginal, anthropophagous, natural and savage) appeared for the first time in European dictionaries and shaped the imagination of the old continent's inhabitants. In 1708, the word anthropophagous, mentioned in Thomas Corneille's Universal Dictionary of Geography, is the term that is used the most. In its dictionary, the Académie Française makes a fusion of "Indians" and "Indigenes" --both from the Latin Indú, which means to alienate and to produce, used by Vergil, Livy and Pliny. During the 18th century the phrase "American Indian" is used, thus comprehending in a universal acceptation people born in different places. This is an effect of cultural globalization, marked as it is by racial, cultural and social cleavage.

The notion of indigenism also bears reference to that of indianism, a term that symbolizes resistance against the repercussions of the alleged "clash of cultures". It is the second effect of the indigenism/globalization articulation. Acculturation, transposition, integrationism, colonial, national, and global domination of an ethnic group on others are the first contacts between different cultures. This contact then favors the emergence of political, social and artistic movements that call for ethnical acknowledgement and equity in the cohabitation of different native peoples (this is "political indigenism"). We thus notice the shift from a pejorative meaning of the indigene to the acknowledgement of its symbolic presence that allows to renew the dynamics of the globalized world.

The reassertion of indigenous peoples, keeping up and favoring their cultural value has a critical effect on the European-Western point of view that was inherited from modernity. These movements, which have a long history and are extremely sensitive to the impacts of the contemporary globalization, insist on the formation of a new idea of a multi- and pluri-ethnical society. This would first consist of accepting indigenous heritage instead of yielding to paternalistic paradigms, and of offering the possibility to bring "development" closer to the particularity of indigenous values (this is the idea of "ethno-development").

The contemporary globalization, as it is set in the dynamics of absorption, also generates fragmentation, diversification, the upgrading of pluralism in societies and renewed ethics of tolerance for diversity. Autonomist indigenous movements are concomitant with the progress of globalization dynamics, and are now under the influence of what is said about indigenes. Thus, on the one hand, violent claims appear (as in the case of Tamils in Sri Lanka, of Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda), and on the other hand, ethnic minorities are trying to adapt to dominant cultures (as in the case of the Druzes, the Copts, the Baloutchis and the Berbers). Similarly, indigenous movements appear that claim territorial independence (Chechens, Kurds, Saharawis and Palestinians), or that make cultural claims inside former colonizing nations (Bretons, Corsicans, Gaelics, Frisians) and linguistic claims (Flemishs or Walloons). All of them call for universal indigenism, that is to say, the acknowledgment of the status of aboriginal peoples. Ultimately, globalization creates new types of migration (which accounts for the presence of “indigenous peoples” who are from Turkey in Bulgaria and in Germany, who are from Hungary in Romania, from Albany in Yugoslavia, and also of “Mixtecos” in California or of “Mazatecos” in Chicago). In this sense, indigenism works inside globalization processes as an important reference for ethnical and cultural claims.

It is becoming important to overcome the social marginalization and the violence that are liked to the indigenous question. But it is equelly important to promote the value of diversity and to favor the capacities of each culture by involving it in a project that aims at enriching the “globalized world”. Questions about the acknowledgment of indigenes, of “Indians”, of their cultures and customs, about the usefulness of their knowledge, of their preservation of traditional techniques (in botany and medicine for instance) remain unanswered. As a matter of fact, if globalizations can favor the acknowledgment of Others, they can also produce exclusion through extremist identitary processes.

The world is very likely to witness a globalization of cultural claims that might take place thanks to notions of “indigenous peoples” and of “ethnic communities”. But it is not certain whether the world is ready for this.