On Spirituality and Dogma

In 1929 physicist Paul Dirac united Einstein’s theory of energy conservation (E=mc²) with Schrodinger’s generalized wave equation which characterizes the energy associated by the spin of a particle (c²p²) to create a relativistic equation that he argues could potentially describe the energy of any wave (and therefore all of the manifestations of the universe).

 

The united equation is E² = c² p² + m² c⁴, but the interesting part about this equation is that it is quadratic – therefore there are two symmetrical solutions of negative and positive energy. Now, typically from as long as I can remember doing physics, we usually are taught to disregard the negative solution because things like negative energy would imply that particles are thus moving backwards in time, which can’t be possible right? Around this time, the concept of entropy had been accepted as one of the laws of the universe – that everything tends towards disorder, the universe is continuously diverging, and each manifestation of the universe is directly determined by preceding events (causes always precede effect). Therefore, many physicists ruled out Dirac’s negative solution and evolved the equation into what is today called the Standard Model (SM) for explaining and predicting wave behavior. But two physicists Feyman and Stuckelberg weighed in on Dirac’s equation and said that you can’t just disregard half of the solution and that it is worth investigating whether a negative energy solution is in fact a negative energy particle travelling backwards in time, or equivalently, a positive energy antiparticle going forwards in time.

 

One place we see this reversal of linear time, or retrocausality, is in black holes. Black holes, unlike the supposedly entropic nature of the rest of the physical world, are distinctly converging systems. The reason why one cannot see light coming or why people say matter is being “sucked in” by black holes is because in converging systems retrocausality rules and energy moving forward in time is the impossible not the other way around. Converging systems are interesting anomalies because they really put universal laws such as entropy and gravity in interesting positions. However, Dirac’s equation – which is supposed to describe all waves of the universe – provides an equal negative solution to the customary positive energy. That would mean that for all of the entropy/divergence in the world there should technically be an equal amount of converging/backwards-flowing energy in the world, so more than just black holes. This is why this equation is particularly scrutinized because in physics labs it’s kind of impossible to observe whether a particle is technically moving backwards-in-time or forwards.

 

Some physicists and mathematicians argue that retrocausal forces go down at the very sub-atomic level to account for the negative energy. But one renowned mathematician in the early-mid-1900s Luigi Fantappié, in his Unitary Theory of the Physical and Biological World, argued that people are forgetting one converging system that’s a big fucking deal – life. When examining the characteristics of converging systems (increased differentiation, complexity, and structuring) and talking to a biologist friend, Fantappié surmised that life is driven by retrocausal/converging forces as well – life instead of being attracted by the past is driven by the future! For example, if Fantappié had lived until 1969, he would point to the scientist Elsasser’s paper A Causal Phenomenon in Physics and Biology: A Case for Construction: which argues that the probability of amino acids to form a simple protein is around 1/10⁶⁰⁰ simple events (by the nanosecond) while in the 13-15 billion years of the Universe there have only been 10¹⁰⁶ simple events possible. That makes the likelihood that amino acids could organize into a simple protein nigh impossible – much less survive entropic forces to organize into cells, complex organisms, beings with consciousness etc. Fantappié would be skeptical about the accepted “randomness” of the universe and would instead contest that life is being guided by retrocaused information in the form of subatomic particles from the future.

 

How is life then even able to interpret the sub-atomic information of particles? Some argue that it is due to the very unique chemical composition of water (which is essential to all life as we know it). The argument is that hydrogen atoms (part of H²O) are small enough to act as a bridge between sub-atomic forces and the molecular level. Hydrogen bonds and the unique physical properties of water also mirror the characteristics of converging systems – hydrogen bonds are 10x stronger than the more common Van der Waals forces, water is known for its cohesiveness, high specific heat, etc. Therefore, deep within life stored in our hydrogen bonds, the future is apparently guiding us.

 

Building upon Fantappié’s theory, I think it would make more sense to believe that we are in a world driven by supercausality which is governed both by entropic forces of the universe and the converging forces of life. We are constantly receiving information both from the material world of classic causality (past creates future) and the world of retrocausality (future influences past). This makes for particularly interesting arguments regarding spirituality. In one sense, this could put determinism in a flux by asserting that we are not purely being determined by our physical past and that those moments when you feel as though intuition is guiding you/God is showing you what to do/universe is helping you are really choices that we must make between conflicts of ~rationality/empiricism~ and ~faith~ (energy from future). Others could also argue that the future of life/info that is guiding us is a higher spiritual being such as a God or that we are being driven towards Its domain (I’d like to think that all of time is simply a loop but I guess we will see lol). Fantappié even argued that in deep states of meditations when one feels as though time and self is lost – that this is simply you connecting completely with the information of the future and that you’re actually experiencing time as it really is happening – past, present, future all at once. This perception of time is also very similar to the Andean Ñaupa that I mentioned in the “Contra-Hegemony” post. Then there is also the more anti-existential crisis interpretation that without organization, direction, and appreciation of life, we are slipping into the entropy of the universe (the technical opposite of life’s converging system) which makes us feel kinda shitty. Lots of different interpretations to go around for sure.

_________________________________________________________________

And on that, I would like to say a few words about spirituality and the ~journey~ more generally. The shaman Don Juan immortalized in Carlos Castenada’s The Teachings of Don Juan said that there is no journey more difficult than the one totally dedicated to the attainment of knowledge. That “a man goes to knowledge as he goes to war, wide-awake, with fear, with respect, and with absolute assurance.” Why is it so difficult? It is because one has to constantly be scrutinizing your own inherent biases, your upbringing, whatever you are learning, and continuously checking your beliefs with what you are experiencing. There is no respite in the pursuit of knowledge, no institution or book that will give you all the knowledge that you are seeking for. You will constantly be proven wrong; you will constantly be amending your perspective.

In line with skepticism, I think it’s important to talk about dogma and the ruling dogmas of today. Although Fantappié collaborated with some of the leading physicists, his and Dirac’s insistence on the time-traveling particles are constantly marginalized by the mainstream physics. Even the acceptance of antiparticles, negelectrons, new contradictory discoveries with the Higgs Boson, etc. have not led to an overhaul of the Standard Model (instead they legit added 36 more modifiers to account for these “new particles”). Many people follow science as the new dogma without taking the time to understand/explore criticisms of it. There are several arguments that attempt to demonstrate the dogmas ruling scientific thought such as: the strong insistence on a deterministic (cause always before effect) nature of the universe despite contradictions in quantum mechanics and special relativity, the condescension towards indigenous/spiritual wisdoms ‘cuz science always has to know more than the “simple people of the past”, the refusal to acknowledge different epistemologies besides just “logic and thinking”, the compartmentalization of science (lack of communication between different fields), the firing of academics simply who challenge the dogma, etc. Cosmopolitics II by Isabelle Stengers is a thorough but tough read on critiques of science’s claims to objectivity, rationality, and truth.

But dogma exists everywhere. The Buddha himself cautioned against following Buddhism as a dogma and explained that his teachings are his own wisdoms – those he gathered on his own path. You may grow up indoctrinated in/most cultured in learning about the world through science, a monotheistic religion, Marxism/Capitalism, nihilism, whatever. But I believe along the way, because the world is so inherently dynamic and untheorizable, an experience will come around to challenge your existing worldview and you will have to evolve beyond the taught dogma or maintain your course. A dogmatic institution or person is one who will delegitimize or ignore an impactful or perspective-altering experience that you’ve had. Think feminism or homosexuality in some religions, think profound emotional experiences in pure objectivist thought, think changing your life in a positive way after meditation/psychedelic experience but being told that those are tricks on your brain. Think the color of life to nihilism. This is why the pursuit of knowledge is a process of “Learning to unlearn in order to relearn.”

But then how does one know if one is ever truly learning something/seeing truth? – and I think that always comes down to your decision; picking based on what you feel. And not the “I’m happy with this conclusion ‘cuz it makes me feel safe for right now” illusory feelings but the “aah this makes so much sense this is right” lasting contentedness. (You should also always read/understand critiques of your contentedness with a particular idea/system too just to make sure that that comfort also isn’t a product of some other dogmatic thinking). And yeah, that mode of assurance is super-tricky ‘cuz how can you ever convince people that you believe you found truth if its rooted in your experiences and feeling. I guess that’s the hardest part about the quest – that it really firmly is personal.

In context of my time in the Andes, this is pertinent because the cosmovision tries to stay away from dogma as much as it can. Beyond generationally passed down cultural norms and traditions, there is no clear codified set of rules that explain how to be ~spiritual~. The closest thing is that famous sumak kawsay (Buen Vivir coopted by the gov’t) that comparts unspecific goals like harmonious relationship with family, community, nature or peace of the heart in order to demarcate the closest thing to spiritual enlightenment. The trick – whole point of life – is figuring out how to get there, how to live that good life and that takes constant observation and a peaceful life. It’s all very confusing and hard to quite explain, but I think that’s how it’s supposed to be.

Also, I have been having a great time finding similarities between my own experiences and the wisdom of spiritual elders here just talking about vibrations driving the universe, the power of the mind, the energy of nature, the looping of time, and similar understandings of happiness/contentedness which kind of gives me hope that even though the journey is personal and the vocabulary may be different that there may be an objective truth to which we are pursuing.

(This volcano brought me one of the most difficult but spiritual experiences of my life)

Sources:

http://www.sintropia.it/english/2006-eng-1-1.pdf (for brief history of Dirac equation)

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lifeenergyscience.it_english_2014-2Deng-2D2-2D01.pdf&d=CwICAg&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=ggDKjvJ3moVAqdzLWDkAbQ&m=Jpg4JHV1s_NxeqrM2EyA0Tpsa_3B9cTMUd7IOvyCLQ8&s=ts3tZOcRe_XyNqneWjDUKEDmIai8UmyFyaAfgFJmAmw&e= (interesting interview shown to me by this one tour guide)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein%E2%80%93Gordon_equation (predecessor to Dirac eq)

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/staff/academic/boyd/stuff/dirac.pdf (derivation of Dirac’s equation)

Rhythm not Routine

 

One of the myths of modernity is that without development, life would be boring. What would we do all day without all those great TV shows, Internet access at our fingertips, exciting lifelike videogames, synthetic recreational substances, etc.? The “past” or less development-focused cultures are often thought as difficult and monotonous with little to do except work and sleep. It really has become hard to imagine what you would do for fun if all of development’s entertainment toys were stripped away from you. Sure it seems possible you could make it a day or two or even a week. But could you do it for weeks on end? Months? The rest of your life?

 

Many existentialist philosophers, college-age young adults, and just regular people in our society lament that life – inherently devoid of meaning – is thus by nature boring. The argument continues that we essentially are just bouncing around activities and things searching for sensation until our tolerance for that experience grows and we seek something bigger. We use these activities or attachments simply fill the void in our lives and when we’re just sitting there not doing something – that’s when we experience the constant boringness of life. Therefore, there is no contentedness until you realize that life is a sham and only then will that emptiness be replaced by triumph over life’s absurdity, or ~liberation~. However, an argument that I have heard frequently here is that this perspective is a product of the modern oppressive system, which does not necessarily value or foster true contentedness and Zen approaches to life.

 

For the past couple weeks, I have been far from those aforementioned fun amenities have gotten to really study a different interpretation of fun. For instance, I only have wi-fi access for an hour a day, I rarely leave the indigenous community, and, besides conducting interviews, I only do what my host family does so I’m not simply mesmerized by all the ~cool and new~ experiences that most tourists here usually go for. And to be honest, the first couple days were definitely a challenge simply because I was so unaccustomed to the pace of life and didn’t really know what to do all day haha! But, as I have settled in, I have consistently had great days filled with lots of laughs, new and strengthened friendships, and good vibes. Nonetheless, the fun is definitely different around here, and so I went around asking people how they saw good times, of which I got a lot of similar answers and will summarize.

 

“Boredom only really comes from having to follow plans.”

In a structured day, if you are under the behest of a schedule and are starting to enjoy something you could feel rushed by something next on the agenda. Even more unfortunate, if you are someone who is usually living by a schedule you may never truly learn to appreciate randomness or see the beauty in the little things in an activity because you’re so hurried to complete one task and move on to the next one. A lot of the people in the community, especially those who do not have jobs in the city, try their best to stay away from plans. In the beginning of my time here when I would wake up and ask what we had to do today, I usually would receive a “not sure yet, we will see” or an immediately necessary task and that’s it. My host mom didn’t even know I was coming to live with them until the morning of (and I got here around 10 am haha)! The lack of scheduling is so pervasive that the community’s 40+ year old men’s soccer team has never been able to schedule a practice because no one really knows when they’re free/have continuously evolving “schedules” –consequently the team is 2-13 this season lmao. But interestingly, the lack of planning doesn’t make them more anxious or stressed by new events rather they handle new information or challenges in the most level-headed manner I’ve seen in a group of people– most likely because they have become accustomed to simply always dealing with surprises.

(always improvising out here)

“Individualism and constant competition can estrange people from one another and lead to isolation.”

The community takes a lot of pride in its solidarity. Amongst the 180 families here, everyone knows each other and very rarely are there instances of jealousy. For example, if someone has a bigger house than you that does not mean that the other person is necessarily living a better life – its ok for there to be a little inequality because everything is still a part of the community and open for all. Additionally, everyone has their own unique and important role for the vitality of the group. The citizens here explain that this openness fosters strong genuine relationships between people as social competition is rare. If you are competing with someone, it becomes difficult to extricate that person from the competition and recognize them as a real person instead of someone foreign to you. It’s a “whole love thy neighbor not try to always be better than her” situation. This manifests itself in a lot of different ways but my favorite is that when people tell stories or share experiences there’s never a competitive dynamic to see who has the best story rather the storyteller’s goal is to make sure the audience is having a great time and sometimes that means alternating the storyteller, too. I think using the story-telling example as a synecdoche for the benefits of community solidarity (whose goal is for everyone to have a good life) is a pretty good explanation for how that leads to more continuous fun and harmonious living.

 

“It’s more fun interacting with people, animals, and/or nature because they have sentimiento and interact with you back.”

The youth explain how many of them learned how to have fun from watching their parents divertirse. The older generation was essentially cut off from any technological entertainment and so, spent their time having fun by playing with animals, joking and dancing with friends, or exploring the nearby mountains and forests. These activities always brought new flavors and changes to life each time. But my host brother acknowledges that this is unexpectedness can be difficult for people who don’t have many positive relationships with the aforementioned subjects, which is why technology entertainment can be a lot more comfortable to sink into.

 

“Each day is different and each activity brings something new.”

My host mom is fascinating. She has never visited any other city besides the neighboring one and even that one she only visits once every other month. She explains that the community already brings so many different activities and surprises, so she never really has the need to venture out! To her, this life is not routine at all; some days may bring the same thing but each day has something new and that is for sure. More so, an activity can change in an infinite number of ways. For example, taking the animals out to graze: one day the cows might try to run away or fight you, another day the dog may instead scare the calves instead of help, or one day you may run into a friend you hadn’t seen in a while, and of course there are days like when a kid with his own personality and quirks from the States joins you. Now multiply the plethora of variables of one activity with all the different activities you could do in one day – no day is the same.

Now, I don’t want to make this post an advice column on how you should change your life to mirror this lifestyle so “you too can always have fun!” Rather, I want to end on a brief debate between existentialism and determinism. Existentialists argue that essence comes prior to existence and that in order to be the person you want to be and maintain a desired perspective (such as seeing the fun and beauty in the little things) you simply envision and will it. This is where advice comes in handy. But determinists would argue that the ability for people to be content and happy with this lifestyle is precisely due to the social structures put in place by society. For example, like the individualism paragraph mentions, the openness and warm conviviality of the community are results of a strong emphasis of the individual as a unit of the community and cultural practices that continuously propagate that idea. On our end, living lives without schedules or experimenting with different variables in your activity may not be practical should you choose to continue participating in normal life. Because the rest of society uses schedules and strictly follows time, you are pressured to do so as well. You can’t skip a day of work for fun or not study for an exam because the societal pressures of jeopardizing your career keep the heat going. I don’t necessarily know if one can see fun this way while still participating in dominant social norms of our society/consumerist culture. But I do think that only changing up the conditions – be it material, psychological, or spiritual – that influence you can change your perspective/life. So, I guess if you’re feeling bored you should try to change up what you do in your life as much as you can (knowing the inveterate limitations of our society) and see if the glimpses of a new perspective on things is worth changing the conditions of your life drastically.

Contra-Hegemony

Diversity is Anathema to Hegemony

 

In Andean culture, time flows circular – the movement of which is called Ñaupa – and in order to understand the present, one must have context of the past. Ñaupa explains that we are continuously progressing towards the future while always reflecting upon the same narratives and struggles of the past. (Below is a visual representation of Ñaupa) 

The Karanki indigenous pueblos, whom I am living with, are a pueblo milenario, meaning their roots can be traced back to at least 10,000 years. The Karanki worldview and traditions have seen more more of human life and the world than many of the currently existing cultures and civilizations (maybe even Western civilization ??). For thousands of years the Karanki people engaged in trade that is described as microvertical. As they, alongside other pueblos, lived off of the mountain with its own microclimates, different communities emerged with their own trade specialties, governance, and culture. Usually having different resources could mean conflict or imperialism right? In order to prevent violence, the different communities created traditions, festivals, and practices that strongly purported inter-community alliances and harmony. For example, festivals would be thrown throughout the year in different communities which were open to all. Some youth would be encouraged to marry intra-community. And children were taught from a very young age that fractured alliances would mean a rupture in the status quo and way of life. In essence, this made it very hard for violence to emerge because these communities were structured to be incredibly inter-dependent and related, but still sovereign. If you want to put it in political terms, we can call this society a vastly multi-polar a-hegemonic world. (This is a drawing of the trade system by the person who taught me the history)

Then, boom the Incan empire came into the picture and things became more political centrally organized. The Incans, an ambitious civilization, wanted to create huge famous cities that were connected by an invisible 45-degree diagonal. This diagonal would divide the Incan empire into two regions characterized by distinct constructed cultures Hannan “Elite” and Urin “Non-Elite”. The Incas then tried so hard to indoctrinate this dichotomy into the language and culture of its empire that when the Spanish colonizers came they actually used the same terms when dictating where colonial municipalities would be. However, the issue was that the Incan empire was only in this region for around 40 years, not really strongly impacting ancient cultures like those of the pre-Incan pueblos. So, here we have a serious obstacle; many decolonizers and political organizers for indigenous rights look to the central organization of the Incan empire as a goal to strive for for indigenous rights, but in fact many pueblos want their own rights and sovereignty. So, there is the Incan version of resistance/political strategy which tries to unionize the indigenous people into a singular representation – a system we are more familiar that would have a new “state/representative body” through which to work with. Some argue that pushing for more indigenous politicians is in line with this goal. Then there is the vision of the milenario pueblos – who do not want to be represented by politicians or a political organ and instead want to return to the multi-polar organization of the past.

 

The Hannan and Urin dichotomy is particularly interesting because to many indigenous people there have always been two projects or visions – the one of the elite and that of the non-elite. For example, when planning for the nearby city Ibarra was going down, the elites wanted to construct the city in order to have a transnational passage for trade between the Colombian city Pasto and Quito while the non-elites (the indigenous and Afro communities) wanted better water transmission in the area and to preserve their culture. The latter’s desire boiled into a resistance movement against the advances of the elites until 1962. Today, Ibarra is a bustling city that more or less fulfilled the elites’ dream, but that does not mean there are serious non-elite plans still going on. You see, whenever there is an oppressed group in a community, especially if it’s a cultural “minority” (very loosely do I want to use that word) there are always going to be these two plans that more often than not are countervailing forces. The plans may be concrete, or still in ideation, may be in action or may be defeated, but there are always these two different plans, or visions for the future.

 

Now, let’s extend this to a larger political frame and why I think that a body who wants power/control would never acquiesce to true diversity. To me, diversity would be letting the non-elite have their vision of the future (probably with the qualifier that they are not trying to hurt anyone). Giving the indigenous pueblos their sovereignty, for example, would be truly recognizing diversity.

 

Unfortunately for Ecuador, this would thus entail a reduction in the Ecuadorian government’s total control, or hegemony. And Ecuador the state does not want to cede that authority because 1) it would have to negotiate over things like use of natural resources with groups that technically have the same power as it and 2) this might disrupt the current administration’s true plan of increasing its wealth, paying off national debt, and becoming “a symbol of Latin American future/progress”. Thus, it becomes very hard for the state to accept the diversity that the different pueblos demand. As such, Ecuador would very much like for these pueblos to instead become a part of the political process and institutions so that they would have to reconcile the pueblo goals with the goals of the elite, instead of creating their respective world/society where they can pursue solely their vision. This argument is based off of the argument that says that it is not necessarily a government official that is the problem, but rather the very institutions of the state are constructed and conditioned to pursue the goals of the elite more than that of the non-elite.

 

Now we expand the frame even more…as I mentioned in my last post the CIA is involved in Ecuador, why is that? Think of the U.S. as an even larger hegemon (which it still is I would argue). The U.S. needs to make sure that Ecuador with all of its social upheaval and U.S.-bad-mouthing president does not suddenly become something that may rupture the U.S. Hannan plan. What would the U.S. elite vision be? I don’t want to get all conspiracy-theory or whatever so I am just going to argue that the U.S. and other neoliberal “elite” states want a globalized world, in order to maintain a global culture, global identity, for a global market.

 

This is why I think that diversity is anathema to the ultimate hegemony, or globalization. As was evident in Ibarra, as is evident in Ecuador, as was evident with the Black Panthers, and as is evident all across the world, cultural preservation protests and demands for cultural sovereignty run against the vision for a globalized world and mono-culture. It is much easier to have a functioning market when the target audience has similar desires, is driven by consumerism to keep consuming, and the people all believe have the same vision of ~progress~. Even beyond the market advantages, the proliferation of different forms of sovereign society could also alter the way people understand what is natural and desired. Speaking on behalf of most college students, the majority of us tend to visit places that are already embracing capitalism/modernity or already well ensconced in it. And if we visit “an alternative to modernity”, they are usually economically struggling non-autonomous places that have suffered from imperialism and colonialism. And I know basically the world has seen the face of colonialism, but what I find unique about my experience here is that this community despite its experience with the infamous –ism’s still continues to try to preserve its way of life. Instead of waiting on the world to change, this community’s Unin plan to be autonomous is already under way. Ancestors bought a bunch of land with credit have created democratic governing systems, have a local economy, and as I mentioned early run their own tourism sector! This community tries to demonstrate that you don’t need to wait for technology’s latest toys or conveniences, get richer, focus on individualism to one day be comfortably happy. Now, imagine how dangerous those ideas would be to the global market ideal. So when states say they embrace diversity, that usually means that they cool with your culture as long as it’s fun and does not soil the vision of a truly mono-cultured world.

 

Since the Andean’s Ñaupa looks at time in a rather circular fashion there are some who believe that the world of the pueblos will return – multi-polar non-hegemonic – and no that does not mean we will “return to the past”, more so our society’s structures would shift back to more of that style. Nonetheless, I think there are still a lot of relevant and nuanced discussions to be had beyond arguing “diversity is contra-hegemony” like… What if we want a globalized world/American hegemony? Would a multi-polar and diverse world be “regressive” and how would it look like? Will these resistance “non-elite” movements be able to coalesce and prevent the elites’ visions?

 

Also update on the whole bonding with the community: Recently got an invite from two girls to attend a fiesta at their neighboring community, I am going to an older women’s embroidery session to learn how to sew this week, and my host brother said that they haven’t had a visitor “like me” before  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A New Home

As is horribly common throughout history across the continent, the indigenous people of Ecuador have faced hundreds of years of physical and psychological violence. Through the brutal horrors of colonization and the tragic indentured servitude of the hacienda system to the blatant ignorance of the modern liberal nation-state, these millennia-old Andean cultures have still managed to persevere and propagate their harmonious way of life in various parts of Ecuador.

 

The Constitution of Ecuador did not even officially recognize the indigenous pueblos until 1998. And even then, this recognition was only won through several unprecedentedly massive indigenous protests that marched through Ecuador’s largest cities. The non-profit director with whom I am working with explained to me that it had never dawned on mainstream culture how large the indigenous population was and the movements quickly threw the mestizo/blanco populations into “mainstream shock”. The different indigenous pueblos, long fragmented amongst each other (which was ofc taken advantage of by governments and transnational companies), formed into different political organizations such as CONAIE, CONAICE, FEINE, FEFIE, etc. that advocated for Constitutional recognition, rights, and sovereignty for Afro/Andina communities. These continued protests and political organizing is also why the 2008 “Buen Vivir” Constitution (which has its own slew of issues I am realizing but will get to in another post) came to fruition.

I have just finished up my first of 25 days living with an indigenous community, which is home to a few political leaders of the uprisings and an expert of sumak kawsay – the Kichwan philosophy that the government co-opted and appropriated with Buen Vivir. I have to keep everyone’s names coded because governments are sneaky and the CIA is furtively active in Ecuador right now (classic). The community I am living with has opened itself up to tourism and even tourist co-living (basically what I am doing except I am doing “research”) for two primary reasons. One, it helps boost their economy as banks are more likely to provide favorable loans to the community because it helps boost tourism to the local city about 20 minutes away. The other is that this community feels that their culture is in danger so this practice functions as a means of spreading the sumak kawsay way of life even if it is to gringos for just a few days. My host father – Franz- explains that this system has improved the community’s relationship with the city because citizens are becoming more aware that the indigenous pueblo is more than just “simple farmers” but rather a group of people with a complex and profound understanding and relationship of the world and human life.

 

However, this relationship no doubt has effects on the community. For example, the house is decorated with things tourists would love but the family never utilizes – hammocks, posters of local tourist attractions, even an advertisement for the local bank that supplies the loans! To this, my host mother Fernandina replies that this is necessary to keep up the economy and that it is ok because it does not really bother them – all the family needs is what is necessary and the rest the tourists can enjoy. My host family sees the different tourists as interesting experiences, but when I pressed my host brother Cho for more information he admits that sometimes it’s a little uncomfortable, especially when the people staying with them don’t know Spanish. It is weird growing up with random oogling tourists who do not really take the time to understand the culture and just want to take pictures with everything. I definitely see this slight antagonism play itself out as the local youth look at me with passing uninterested glances which strongly contrasts against the adults’ incredibly friendly demeanors.

 

Nonetheless, the community is more open and inviting than any other community I have been a part of and everyone is eager to speak about the Andean cosmovision if one is willing to truly listen. On my part, I need to demonstrate that I truly am here to learn and I too want to help preserve and propagate their culture. To the youth, I am focusing on building friendships and being ~down for whatever~ so that instead of being a nuisance and I can help create positive experiences for everyone. For sure, this is the furthest I have ever been from capitalism/colonialism and the world truly is different here. The experiences I have already had have left me continuously feeling like a baby in a new place. Even the animals here behave in a much more amicable way than I have seen before. The world really does have some interesting things out there and life is such a dynamic process. Lets goooo.

 

 

Propaganda Politics

Due to the “opening” of Cuba by the Obama administration, I have recently begun seriously thinking about how propaganda – when done well – significantly makes understanding the true state of things exceptionally difficult. In a conversation with my good friends Christina and Pranava, we talked about how U.S. propaganda against communism, Cuban propaganda to its own people, and even today’s Obama/mainstream media propaganda have made it very difficult to assess Cuban satisfaction with the government. For example, I would point out that there was/is general approval of the Castro regime within the country, but then they would counter by saying that the Castro government limited the information given to the public, in effect brainwashing them to be content. Annoyed at everyone having overwhelming bias, I DM’d a reporter who has been living in Cuba for the past few years and has an Instagram where he conducts HONY style interviews with the citizens that present a much more authentic idea of Cuban life (check out @cubareporter).

 

However, I think the issue of propaganda, in particular how it affects the public’s satisfaction towards the government, is a pertinent discussion for all states managed by governments must abide by popular vote, but also have a disproportionate amount of control over information. I would say that this “democratic propaganda” is more than just controlling what content is published by the media, rather it is when the government inundates public information with its own interpretation of the state of things and assertively casts a favorable opinion of itself. It is when the Obama administration releases “cool and funny” videos of the President which makes it harder to criticize his actions or inactions. It is when my PubPol 301 class teaches that in order to have your policy last a long time you should try to build people’s lives around your policy and continuously disseminate favorable interpretations of it. Democratic propaganda goes deeper and affects your psyche, especially for people who are economically and socially removed from the direct consequences of government activity, so that you can affectionately remember an administration (Test: When you think Obama what is the first thing you think of? If its something from social media or a symbolic gesture its working).

 

Here in Ecuador its crazy, especially with Buen Vivir. Buen Vivir being such a cool, optimistic social movement that was received affectionately by the people and critical thinkers alike was the perfect thing for the Correa administration to jump on. Every week there are documentaries on public TV about Buen Vivir and “living in harmony”. Each street corner has flags or banners proclaiming Ecuador – Ama la vida. Government officials and government buildings are adorned with the rainbow colors of Buen Vivir. Many people I have talked to here speak about how Buen Vivir used to be so authentic and meaningful, but it recently has turned into something cheesy that’s clearly manipulated for government use. It is rather interesting how the Dept. for Buen Vivir or “The Construction of a Society of a Good Life” is now headed by the former minister of Tourism Freddy Ehlers and how around half of his $12 million budget is spent on advertising. Many critics of this propaganda argue that instead of creating a dept of Buen Vivir, the government officials themselves should sit through all the BV programming that they create. However, the majority agree that Buen Vivir is used as a symbolic discourse that masks the continued exploitation of certain natural reserves in Ecuador and the condescension of Correa towards the indigenous and women.

 

However, like everything, there are two sides. Supporters of Correa when pressed about this issue of “democratic propaganda” or brainwashing argue that every politician in a democracy has to conduct some propaganda or another because they believe that their administration is in the right. They argue that Correa’s opposition and previous leaders were even more opaque and blatant about brainwashing, and that at least Correa provides more truth of the state of things than any other group. Additionally, Correa is heralded as a fighter for the poor and his administration has slashed 60% of the national debt, invested significantly in education, and expanded transportation infrastructure, which has greatly helped the isolated poor. Supporters argue that Buen Vivir has helped grow the economy in a more sustainable way by bringing in tourism in a sustainable way, thanks to more national reserves and emphasis on nature preservation. To these supporters, Buen Vivir is more important for the dissemination of clean water and electricity to everyone and the reduction of severe inequality rather than a total protection of nature. Therefore, the propaganda is merely a means of continuing the progress of the Correa administration.

 

One argument I have heard that I find particularly interesting is that this current propaganda and extensive advertising for Buen Vivir is necessary to achieve the goal of creating a more peaceful and harmonious society. If the people are inundated with messages of loving life, loving nature, finding meaning within the community, and these people pass this on to their children and then to their children’s children, won’t that actually lay the foundation for this greater goal? Is this propaganda then ethical, especially if its masking serious problems and malpractices of the government? If not ethical, is it still worth it? Ending with the example of Obama, although he propagates a lot of symbolic gestures and videos, isn’t this symbolism good because its emphasizes a more progressive interpretation of things so that our society becomes more accepting in the future? Up to you.

It Begins – Arrival in Quito

At 9:31 PM local time, I will arrive in the Marisol Airport in Quito to be greeted by the stewards of my research in Ecuador – Juan, an elderly ponytailed man with a confident composure who has worked with the Black Panthers and dined with Bob Dylan, and Wilma, a beaming mother of two older boys who signs off her emails with the quote “una persona positiva es la que Se cayó; Se levantó, Se sacudió, Se curó los raspones, le sonrió a la vida y dijo: ¡Ahí voy de nuevo!” (A positive person is one who falls, rises up, shakes off the dust, heals the scrapes, smiles at life and says, “Here I go again!”) 

For one week, these two will help me structure my research on the groundbreaking social movement Buen Vivir and the indigenous Andean wisdoms that drive it. Quick preface, Buen Vivir argues that everyone, including nature which is composed of a plethora of sentient beings, has the right to a good life. Incredibly intersectional, the movement collaborated with the struggles of feminists, students, Afro-Latinos, queerfolk, and other minority groups to the point where the governments of Ecuador and Bolivia both restructured their Constitutions to reflect their interpretation of Buen Vivir. (Check out http://www.palgrave-journals.com/development/journal/v54/n4/full/dev201186a.html for more comprehensive info. There’s a ton of papers/news on this movement online.)

My research will be investigating how different minority groups respond to and interpret BV, how government co-optation alters and changes the rupturing capacity of a revolutionary movement like BV, and how much of Buen Vivir is composed of true indigenous Quechuan wisdoms.

The research will be be composed of interviews both structured and unstructured; on top of me trying to actively participate in Quechuan life. I recognize that I will be making judgments based on my role as an subjective observer with my own distinct relationship with those I interact with. My own personality, background, and mindset will quite literally determine the reality of Quechuan culture I experience. I hope to continue developing my understanding of my own subjectivity to ascertain objective truths between humans. I will relentlessly pursue an understanding of the Quechuan cultural through their own words to try to get a glimpse of how a culture that has weathered past its Incan prime, through violences of colonialism and imposed capitalism, is able to do so.

As I was reading ethnography manuals, there was one author (Tony Whitehead) who had some beautiful words about cultural immersion/ethnography. He explained that the process of discovery occurs when the observer experiences a disjunction between worlds – that of the host culture’s and the ethnographer’s. People experiencing new cultures often look for similarities between cultures in order to ease themselves in, but a true task is to both find differences between worlds and to understand that our world may not have a framework to make an observation coherent. Discovery is when we expand our framework, and thus our knowledge and ourselves. As some Latin American scholars and psychedelic hippies say, I am going to keep trying to decolonize my mind, letting it roam openly as it seeks to learn and break down my preconceived beliefs and expectations. I will simmer my skepticism and turn my critical faculties toward pressing those whom I meet in order to capture some glimpses of the world they see. And maybe I hope to get better at writing blogs l o l.