This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]

On: 03 July 2015, At: 16:43

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic

Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlac20

Introduction: Indigenous peoples and

autonomy in Latin America
Tirso Gonzales & Miguel Gonzlez
Published online: 03 Jul 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Tirso Gonzales & Miguel Gonzlez (2015) Introduction: Indigenous peoples
and autonomy in Latin America, Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, 10:1, 1-9, DOI:
10.1080/17442222.2015.1034437
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17442222.2015.1034437

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 16:43 03 July 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, 2015

Vol. 10, No. 1, 19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17442222.2015.1034437

Introduction: Indigenous peoples and

autonomy in Latin America
Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 16:43 03 July 2015

Tirso Gonzales and Miguel Gonzlez

At the threshold of the twenty-first century, the concept of autonomy is a disputed term
within academia and among different social sectors globally and regionally. In particular, the meaning of the term autonomy remains elusive and highly contested in the
relationships between Indigenous Peoples and Latin American states. The case studies
and reflections presented in this special issue provide evidence that the concept of
autonomy is not enough to understand the complex relationships between Indigenous
Peoples and the kind of state that prevails today in Latin America. Throughout the
region, capitalism as a global mode of production continues to expand and dominate,
liberal democracy is characterized by limited levels of pluri-cultural participation in
state decision-making, and there is widespread corruption and abuse of power among
state officials at different levels. Moreover, liberal democracy continues to disregard the
pressing socio-economic needs of the low-income sectors of society, in particular
Indigenous Peoples. After reviewing the materials included in the special issue, this
introductory essay argues that a theoretical convergence between decolonial and
Indigenous studies and scholarship can offer an enhanced perspective for interpreting
the meaning of autonomy.
Keywords: Autonomy; Indigenous Peoples; Latin America; democracy
The focus of this special issue is on Indigenous Peoples experiences of autonomy in
Latin America. No general comparative edited collection has yet been published in
English featuring empirical research on the issue in question. We see our work as
contributing to an emerging and rapidly evolving body of literature on indigenous
autonomy that seeks to advance reflection and synthesis on the basis of empirical
research, case studies, and comparative analysis (Blaser, de Costa, McGregor and
Coleman 2010; Gonzales 2013; Gonzlez, Burguete, and Ortiz 2010; Gutirrez 2008;
Postero 2007; Rengifo, Gonzales, and Costilla 2014; see also Estevas article and
Delgados review in this issue).
This essay identifies two predominant streams in current interpretations of
Indigenous Politics and more concretely on Indigenous Peoples struggle for autonomy. The first line of interpretation proposes that there is nothing radical in the
demand for indigenous self-government as it might represent a claim for accessing
full individual liberal citizenship rights within a context of liberal institutional
decay, therefore it does not necessarily threaten the socio-political configuration
2015 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 16:43 03 July 2015

T. Gonzales and M. Gonzlez

and modes of social reproduction and domination of current states. Observers have
criticized that autonomys legal arrangements might even further restrain indigenous self-determination in practice (Garcs 2011; Hale 2011, 189). A second perspective contends that autonomy does in fact represent an avenue for transforming
colonizing practices that are embedded in the state and coexist with new forms of
neoliberal governance. It is argued that this is particularly the case when Indigenous
Peoples embrace autonomy as concrete exercise of rights (without necessarily
seeking the consent of the state); as a radical strategy for realizing collective rights
and self-determination (Esteva 2002; see also Estevas article in this issue).
In organizing this special issue, we start from the idea that the above interpretive
streams need to be appraised by examining the current landscape of state-sanctioned
autonomous regimes (implementation cases) as well as by taking a closer look at the
experiences in which autonomy is said to be producing subaltern forms of social
identity at the margins of the state (Baronnet 2011). We prefer to explore interaction
and diversity (hybridity included) in political processes concerning indigenous autonomy, rather than conceding to two ostensibly opposing explanatory models (Arditi
2011). Indeed, an emerging scholarship suggests that there is a more complex and
often contradictory interplay between forms of indigenous governance being granted
by the state, and self-regulating forms of social and political organization that are
rooted in communal structures (Esteva 2002; Orta 2013, 128). For example, observers
have noted that collective rights granted to indigenous self-governing units might not
prevent the encroachment of agents involved in violent practices, who undermine
self-determination and survival (Tovar-Restrepo and Irazbal 2014). On the other
hand, challenging the subordinating rationality of the state means in reality that
indigenous societies are turning inward and as result, may face internal forms of
contestation not easily contained within the forms of territorial/ancestral governance
rooted in communal social organizations. In the same vein, in responding to resource
extraction schemes or large-scale infrastructure projects, indigenous societies are
often divided as to how best to pursue self-determination without compromising
their hopes and aspirations for socio-economic wellbeing (McNeish 2013).
This last question has significant implications for the way we interpret indigeneity
in relation to autonomy. It might be argued that indigeneity and autonomy are both
contested phenomena, as they are the product of historical dynamics and processes,
are relational in nature, and are currently experiencing new and profound transformation as the result of the impact of globalization in indigenous societies.
In contributing to the ongoing debate on indigenous autonomy, we suggest that
an unconventional interpretation is necessary one that can help us understand
the political, cultural, and social conditions in which indigenous self-determination
is materializing in relation to (or in contradistinction to) changes in regimes of
governance of Latin American states. Inspired by the task of providing a more
nuanced interpretation of the relationships between states and Indigenous Peoples,
the articles presented in this special issue of LACES explore, outside of conventional, colonial forms of scholarship, various experiences of indigenous autonomy
in Latin America and they offer critical reflection on their potential for realizing
self-determination.

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 16:43 03 July 2015

Indigenous Peoples and Autonomy in Latin America

Miguel Gonzlez opens this issue providing general background on the different
kinds of contemporary arrangements regarding the recognition of autonomy rights in
Latin America (constitutional reforms, legislation). This article traces the interpretive
approaches to explaining the demand for indigenous territorial autonomy and notes
that in a selected number of country cases, autonomy has meant an avenue for realizing
the right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples. However, after describing the
specific contents of autonomy arrangements granted in constitutional reforms,
Gonzlez suggests that a significant number of current situations are characterized by
ambiguities, contradictions, and overall debilitating conditions for achieving autonomous self-governance in practice. Gonzlezs discussion suggests that autonomy signals
the emergence of a unique plural governance regime in the region, but this novelty
could be compromised if it continues to be undermined by extractivism, neoliberal
governance, and de facto powers that overrun indigenous societies.
Following Gonzlezs overview, three case studies are presented: Bolivia,
Ecuador, and Mexico. In all three countries the demand for autonomy has been
a salient issue for the relations between Indigenous Peoples and the state. Jason
Tockman, John Cameron, and Wilfredo Plata focus on the institutions of indigenous self-governance that are being created in Bolivia with the approval of the
2009 Constitution, and analyze the specific contents of the countrys first five
approved statutes of indigenous autonomy. The comparative analysis of the
approved statutes offers revealing conclusions. The authors suggest that Bolivias
legal framework is highly restrictive of indigenous autonomy and it is configuring
a hybrid model of governance that articulates both municipal and indigenous
local norms and principles along a communitarianliberal spectrum. In opposition
to essentialized interpretations of indigenous societies in the current literature, the
comparison of statutes also reveals an appropriation of liberal principles and
particularly of municipal modes of governance by indigenous peoples. The
authors analysis focuses on the agency of Indigenous Peoples and their community organizations in their effort to draft the statutes, and in doing so the authors
fill a gap in existing interpretations of autonomy in Bolivia that tend to emphasize
on structural factors limiting indigenous self-governance.
Pablo Ortiz-T.s article discusses ongoing autonomy experiences in Ecuador (the
Kichwa of Napo and the Loreto provinces; and the Kichwa and Achuar territories of
Pastaza, both located in the central Amazon). He raises a central question: what are
the present dilemmas and misunderstandings in the process of constituting the
Circunscripciones Territoriales Indgenas (or CTIs, for its Spanish acronym) and
their capacity to realize the right to self-determination and territorial control of
indigenous nationalities in Ecuador? Ortiz-T. traces the historic genealogy of autonomy within the discourse and practice of Ecuadorean indigenous organizations over
the last thirty years. He points out how autonomy has undergone a long and tortuous
process since it first appeared in the demands of the Organization of the Indigenous
Peoples of Pastaza (OPIP) in the late 1970s. This has been due to the combined effect
of the states approach in its attempt to subordinate indigenous self-determination to
national priorities (particularly through secondary legislation and administrative
norms), as much as to the divisive nature of indigenous politics, which has weakened

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 16:43 03 July 2015

T. Gonzales and M. Gonzlez

organizations legitimacy and territorial control. Ortiz-T. reflects upon the instructive
and complex tasks involved in establishing the constitutional principle of recognition
of the CTIs, in particular, reordering and adjusting the states jurisdictions (parishes,
provinces, and municipalities) to indigenous ancestral territories, which have also
gone through substantial transformations. The author concludes that in the absence
of a profound restructuring of political process at the State level, the old monocultural, ethnocentric, and colonial institutionality persist.
In the third case study, Mariana Mora focuses on the interplay between shifting
regulatory practices of the Mexican neoliberal state and the attempts to destabilize these
practices by Zapatista civilian support bases as they enact their own practices of
autonomy, particularly in the arenas of conflict resolution and implementation of
justice. Moras work offers insightful elements to interpreting autonomy as it operates
at the contested spatial borders of state institutions. Although Zapatistas autonomy has
claimed self-determination in practice, this does mean, as Mora points out, that
Zapatista autonomous regions are exempt from state regulatory practices. These
practices create tangible effects that critically influence the pace, relevance, and prospects of indigenous autonomy in such a region. The article examines these practices
(competing development projects, the social effects of neoliberalism, and militarization/surveillance), and argues that Zapatistas bottom-up engagement with the sphere
of justice, including the resolution of long-standing agrarian conflicts, has disrupted the
states regulatory practices in three fundamental areas of governance: institutional
jurisdictions, conflict resolution (as the principles and social meaning of justice counteract the states logic), and relations of power (as part of a broader decolonizing
process). The work Mora invites us to reconsider is the theoretical significance of the
contested terrains of autonomy as they constitute, epistemologically speaking, creative
spaces that attempt to transform power relations more broadly.
The Perspectives section includes contributions by Tirso Gonzales and Gustavo
Esteva. Both authors bring a unique experience and perspective in relation to the
central theme of this issue, as they have been close allies and protagonists of
contemporary indigenous struggles for autonomy. Tirso Gonzales argues, from an
Indigenous studies and epistemic decolonization position, that Andean
Indigenous Autonomy and Ontonomy are a requirement for the national and
regional nurturance and regeneration of Kawsay (life as a whole) in the Andes.
The regeneration of Kawsay is central to successful strategies in a context of
global climate change/crisis at the end of the development era. Gonzales work
focuses on the Proyecto Andino de Tecnologias Campesinas (PRATEC)-Ncleos
de Afirmacin Cultural Andino-Amaznica (NACAs), which is an autonomous
community-based experience with Andean Cultural Affirmation. He evaluates
PRATEC-NACAs deprofessionalized (not serving the needs of any Eurocentric
discipline) Andean scholarship regarding its theory, epistemology, and praxis of
Andean Indigenous life and worldview. These key elements, Gonzales argues, have
allowed this collective (including the author) to elaborate a Community-Based
Model for Knowledge Production as an Andean indigenous autonomous path to
regenerating Kawsay. Such a proposal, Gonzales notes, has been possible through
patient accompaniment, reflection and the proposal of an other/una otra

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 16:43 03 July 2015

Indigenous Peoples and Autonomy in Latin America

autonomous epistemology of cultural affirmation and facilitator, The

Accompanist. The author suggests that PRATEC-NACAs endeavor and
commitment to upholding Kawsay as a guiding principal provides a
comprehensive alternative to the limitations, and failures, of Euro-North
American-centered epistemologies manifested through development approaches
imposed on Andean Indigenous communities. Gonzales article provides explanatory concepts and evidence supporting the relevance of PRATEC-NACAs work
in generating an Indigenous autonomous epistemic (and potentially emancipatory) horizon of devoting itself to a project of cultural affirmation, respectful
inter- and multi-cultural dialogues of knowledges and Indigenous self-determination. His non-linear, non-chronological discourse highlights, connects, proposes,
and advances issues relevant and constitutive of an Andean Indigenous Culture of
Scholarship and of what he proposes as a new emerging field, Latin American
Indigenous Studies, and subfields AndeanAmazonian Indigenous Studies. Last
but not least, Gonzales understands his contribution as part of a wide process of
decolonization/reindigenization. This approach informs his intellectual/scholarly
work and life as part of the revitalization of Kawsay, reconnecting with and
nurturing place, and what he calls the Pachacene as an alternative to the
Anthropocene. This has been possible by a nurturing long-term relationship
with the collective PRATEC-NACAs.
In the closing essay, the reflections of Gustavo Esteva (of Zapotec ancestry)
correspond to a radical stream in the conceptualization of autonomy. He
organizes the current interpretations (and reactions) to autonomy into two basic
and inherently conflictive approaches: those who try to achieve some form of
_autonomy, and those who seek to regulate and control it. For Esteva, struggles
for autonomy, diverse as they are, signal the radical assertion of the right to selfdetermination and ultimately represent the contemporary decay of liberal democracy and its attendant political institutions. Along this line of criticism, he contends that conventional democratic theory operates on a conceptual shift that
betrays and distorts the root of democracy as the capacity of self government.
Estevas unenthusiastic stance towards legally sanctioned autonomous regimes in
Latin America is grounded in his critical viewpoint about the limits of the
neoliberal/developmentalist state in safeguarding autonomous self-governance.
Instead, he calls for an analytical emphasis on understanding what people can
do for themselves to improve their lives and transform their social relations,
rather than social engineering and legal and institutional changes.
The contemporary indigenous struggles for autonomy in Latin America are taking place
in the context of what some scholars qualify as the end of the development era and of the
liberal and neoliberal paradigms adopted in the region as extolled since 1949 by US
President Truman and actively endorsed by Western Europe, Japan, and a long tail of
westernized countries to date. In this vein, renowned critical Latin American scholars have
stressed the end of a cycle. Theotonio Dos Santos, an important critical theorist of
dependency, notes that neoliberalism as a model is in its terminal phase (Dos Santos
2012). Esteva remarks that the struggles for democracy in the region are taking place at the
end of a historical cycle (this issue). Other important indigenous and non-indigenous

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 16:43 03 July 2015

T. Gonzales and M. Gonzlez

leaders, intellectuals and scholars talk about the crisis of the Western civilizatory model or
of a profound civilizatory crisis (Lander 2010). In a sense, this special issue aims at
contributing to ongoing debates on the limits of current modes of governance and of
western-inspired models of institutional organization, as their stability, crisis, or transformation comprise the cultural and political terrain under which struggles for autonomy are
currently fought.
Our discussion on indigenous autonomy would be incomplete if we did not take into
consideration subaltern forms of rationality and agency, not necessarily captured or
expressed through political/institutional analysis. The salience of this question has clearly
been brought to the fore by the emergence of the epistemologies of the south (de Sousa
2011) and the modernity/coloniality/decoloniality collective project (Mignolo 2011,
2014a, 2014b), which are part of the contemporary epistemological disobedience discourses within Euro-American-centered academia that aim to contribute to the goal of
offering other possible worlds in conjunction with a diversity of autonomous epistemologies. Those two issues are central in deepening the reflection on autonomy in the region.
The potential of this emerging epistemological diversity has also been suggested simply
and didactically by Colombian scholar Arturo Escobar (2010). He proposes the terms
conocimientos pachammicos, CPs, (pachamamic knowledge(s)) and conocimientos
modrnicos, CMs, (modernist knowledge(s)). Escobar does not discard CMs or blindly
suggests that CPs are all-beneficial. CPs are related to the richness and diversity of the
eight hundred ethnic indigenous cultures/nations living in Latin America:
CPs could be more important today to understand what is emerging. That which is
moving towards the constitution of worlds and knowledge otherwise,It is urgent
then to take seriously the CPs in the widest sense of the word. For this it is important to
begin by acknowledging the tremendous asymmetry that has historically existed, which
still exists between these and the CMs. The modrnicos or intellectuals of ever, are not
the only possessors of valid knowledge and truth, the only owners of the ball; even more,
there is not just one ball, nor just one field, nor just one set of rules of the game.
(Escobar 2010; authors translation)

Indigenous, territorial, scholarly, intellectual, and epistemological autonomies are

intertwined. They enter into conflict with the endless and voracious international
and national demands for key natural resources mainly located within Indigenous
Peoples lands and territories. The encroachment of and violence over Indigenous
Peoples lands and fundamental sources of life in the region continue despite
constitutional reforms in many countries in the area, major United Nations declarations, and International legally and nonlegally binding covenants (Human Rights,
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ILO Convention 169, Biological
Diversity Convention).
A fundamental crosscutting and underlying issue that also emerges from the
various articles presented in this special issue is the question of epistemology or,
better said, epistemologies. Western epistemic hegemony is highly questioned, as
decolonial scholar Walter Mignolo aptly notes.
[By] relevant social and cultural knowledges [which] do not require the normative
control and regulation of Eurocentric social sciences,New knowledge formation is
emerging from the experiences, needs, and memories of the non-European world in

Indigenous Peoples and Autonomy in Latin America

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 16:43 03 July 2015

contentious dialogue with 200 years of Western epistemic hegemony. (Mignolo

2014a, 584)

Academia in the Americas has remained, from its inception to date, a stronghold
of Euro-American-centered discourses and analyses. Aside from the newly created
Indigenous universities in Latin America, there is still a long way to go for Latin
American Indigenous Studies be part of indigenous higher education an issue
that deserves further major scrutiny. We acknowledge in this special issue the
temporary absence of the other Latin American epistemologies and its Indigenous
scholars and scholarship at large. Despite the important size of the Indigenous
population (one hundred million if new censuses were applied in the region) in
Latin America, Indigenous intellectuals and scholars seem not to have indigenous
scholarly outlets (associations, journals) where to discuss and propose community
and culture-sensitive key issues related to the indigenous question such as indigenous autonomy.
In Latin America, the complexity of indigenous autonomy faces the challenge offered
by the rich diversity of cultures/cosmovisions, languages, specific defiances, and the
particular socio-political conjuncture of each country. Today the dominant inherited
colonial languages officially adopted in the region seem not well suited to grasp or
explain the complexity of, the internal indigenous community or to strengthen dialogue/debates on autonomy. Another urgent issue is autonomy in the production of
knowledge. Fifteen years ago, Mignolos (1999) article proposed decolonizing knowledge, academia, research, and centers of knowledge generation with non-Eurocentric
academic integrity/dignity and rigor, as part of independent/non-subordinate/decolonial Latin American ways of thinking, and other/unas otras epistemologies, worldviews,
and scholarships. This proposal continues to be highly relevant. The subject of autonomy in the production and dissemination of knowledge is a topic that has not been
adequately tackled, with all due respect, by major Latin American(ist) Associations,
their elected representatives, and most of their respective members.
In the last few years a handful of scholars from various disciplines from the
University of Wisconsin, Madison, a highly select group of Latin American(ist) scholars
that are part of the Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality Collective Project (Mignolo
2011, 2014a, 2014b), and others (Blaser 2010; de la Cadena 2010), have begun to
rethink the ethical, methodological, and conceptual frameworks within which [they]
re-locate [their] work on questions of Native histories and cultures (Mallon 2012, 2).
Also see Blaser et al. (2010) in the book review section. Acknowledging the importance
and early stages of such work, there are other efforts that may well complement the
work of the above scholars by incorporating autonomous Latin American Indigenous
Cultures of Scholarship (LAICS) through the establishment of Latin American
Indigenous Studies ethical, methodological, discursive, and conceptual frameworks.
The proposed LAICS should recognize both indigenous university graduates and
community-based intellectuals as peers. This is an inextricably central issue to any
relevant conventional or otherwise scholarly research endeavor. This means not only
claiming a space within academic circles for indigenous points of view, but envisioning
a time when indigenous [discourses] languages, histories, epistemologies are part of the

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 16:43 03 July 2015

T. Gonzales and M. Gonzlez

knowledge that everyone seeks out (Mallon 2012,15). This could allow a more
balanced, respectful, intellectual and academic dialogue on the broad and complex
issue of Indigenous Peoples and autonomy in the region.
Estevas deprofessionalized intellectual work, and more specifically his article in this
issue illustrates the potential and outcomes of bringing indigenous community-based
scholarship into academia. By bringing the incorporation of ontonomy and heteronomy into the autonomy debate in Latin America, Esteva provides a more insightful,
comprehensive and culturally sensitive approach to the issue in question. In this light,
the historical and current nature, structure, and character of the Latin American state
have not been and are not the most propitious and suitable for the support of
Indigenous autonomy in the region.

Acknowledgment
The authors express their gratitude to Ana Maria Sarria for her invaluable editorial work.

References
Arditi, B. 2011. Arguments about the Left: A Post-Liberal Politics. In Latin Americas Left Turns.
Politics, Policies & Trajectories of Change, edited by M. Cameron and E. Hershberg, 145167.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Baronnet, B. Mora, M., and R. S. Sholk. 2011. Luchas muy otras. Zapatismo y autonoma en las
comunidades indgenas de Chiapas. Mxico: CIESAS.
Blaser, M. 2010. Storytelling, Globalization from the Chaco and Beyond. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Blaser, M., R. De Costa, D. McGregor, and W. Coleman, eds. 2010. Indigenous Peoples and
Autonomy: Insights for a Global Age. Vancouver: UBC Press.
de la Cadena, M. 2010. Indigenous Cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual Reflections Beyond
Politics. Cultural Anthropology 25 (2): 334370. doi:10.1111/cuan.2010.25.issue-2.
de Sousa, B. 2011. Introduccion: Las epistemologias del sur. In Formas-otras. Saber, nombrar,
narrar, hacer. IV Training Seminar de jvenes investigadores en dinmicas interculturales, 11
22. Barcelona: Centre for International Affairs, CIDOB ediciones.
Dos Santos, T. 2012. El pensamiento neoliberal es una farsa. Diario Octubre. Accessed June, 2013.
http://www.diario-octubre.com/2013/06/02/el-pensamiento-neoliberal-es-una-farsa/
Escobar, A. 2010. Pachammicos versus Modrnicos? Poltica y Economa CLAES/D3E, May
25. Accessed May, 2014. http://www.politicayeconomia.com/2010/05/pachamamicos-versusmodernicos/
Esteva, G. 2002. The Meaning and Scope of the Struggle for Autonomy. In Mayan Lives, Mayan
Utopias: The Indigenous Peoples of Chiapas and the Zapatista Rebellion, edited by J. Rus, R. A.
H. Castillo, and S. Mattiace, 243270. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Garcs, F. 2011. The Domestication of Indigenous Autonomies in Bolivia: From the Pact of Unity
to the New Constitution. In Remapping Bolivia: Resources, Territory, and Indigeneity in a
Plurinational State, edited by N. Fabricant and B. Gustafson, 4667. Santa Fe, NM: School for
Advanced Research.
Gonzales, T. 2013. Indigenous Biocultural Diversity in Times of Neoliberalism and Climate
Change: PRATEC-NACA, An Emerging Paradigm in the Andes. Langscape 2 (12): 3438.
Gonzlez, M., A. Burguete, and P. Ortiz, eds. 2010. Autonoma a debate: Polticas de reconocimiento
indgena y el estado plurinacional en Amrica Latina. Quito: Facultad Latinomericana de
Ciencias Sociales.

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 16:43 03 July 2015

Indigenous Peoples and Autonomy in Latin America

Gutirrez, N., ed. 2008. Estados y autonomas en democracias contemporneas: Bolivia, Ecuador,
Espaa, Mxico. Mxico, DF: UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales: Plaza y Valds.
Hale, C. 2011. Resistencia para Qu? Territory, Autonomy, and Neoliberal Entanglements in the
Empty Spaces of Central America. Economy and Society 40 (2): 184210. doi:10.1080/
03085147.2011.548947.
Lander, E. 2010. Estamos Viviendo Una Profunda Crisis Civilizatoria. In Amrica Latina en
Movimiento, Issue 452, Ao XXXIV, II poca, 13, 26, febrero de 2010. Accessed June 2014.
http://alainet.org/es/active/35669
Mallon, F. E., ed. 2012. Decolonizing Native Histories. Collaboration, Knowledge, and Language in
the Americas. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
McNeish, J.-A. 2013. Extraction, Protest and Indigeneity in Bolivia: The TIPNIS Effect. Latin
American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies 8 (2): 221242. doi:10.1080/17442222.2013.808495.
Mignolo, W. 1999. Coloniality at Large: Knowledge at the Late Stage of the Modern/Colonial
World System. Journal of Iberian and Latin American Research 5 (2): 110. doi:10.1080/
13260219.1999.10431794.
Mignolo, W. 2011. The Collective Project Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality. Accessed September,
2014. http://waltermignolo.com/the-collective-project-modernitycolonialitydecoloniality/
Mignolo, W. 2014a. Spirit Out of Bounds Returns to the East: The Closing of the Social Sciences
and the Opening of Independent Thoughts. Current Sociology 62 (4): 584602. doi:10.1177/
0011392114524513.
Mignolo, W. 2014b. Pensar como sudaca. Interview with A. Gortzar. La Diaria, Mayo 9, 2014.
Accessed June 2014. http://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2014/5/pensar-como-sudaca/
Orta, A. 2013. Forged Communities and Vulgar Citizens: Autonomy and Its Lmites in
Semineoliberal Bolivia. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 18
(1): 108133. doi:10.1111/j.1935-4940.2012.01249.x.
Postero, N. 2007. Now We Are Citizens: Indigenous Politics in Postmulticultural Bolivia. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Rengifo, G., T. Gonzales, and K. Costilla. 2014. Communities Nurturing Their School: A
Biocultural Approach to Education in the Peruvian Andes. Langscape 3 (1): 6271.
Tovar-Restrepo, M., and C. Irazbal. 2014. Indigenous Women and Violence in Colombia Agency,
Autonomy, and Territoriality. Latin American Perspectives 41 (1): 3958. doi:10.1177/
0094582X13492134.

Tirso Gonzales is at the Indigenous Studies Program, University of British Columbia Okanagan,
3333 University Way, Arts 312, Kelowna, BC Canada V1V 1V7 (Email: tirso.gonzales@ubc.ca).
Miguel Gonzlez is at the International Development Studies Program, York University, 133
Founders College, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto ON Canada M3J1P3 (Email: migon@yorku.ca).