Chamanismo y Ayahuasca: lugares y circulaciónMas allá de las fronteras étnicas o nacionales, el chamanismo constituye hoy en día un paisaje multi-polar cuyos contornos se dibujan a través de los continuos desplazamientos de larga distancia de especialistas en rituales y de practicantes, su fuerte presencia en las redes Web y por el consiguiente entrecruzamiento y la constante reconfiguración de discursos y prácticas. Estos procesos son por ende el lugar de creación de nuevas formas de itinerancia, poco analizadas por los enfoques clásicos de la antropología y de la sociología de las migraciones. Constituyen modalidades emergentes dentro del "orden de movilidades" contemporáneas (Cortés y Faret 2009). El término "movilidad" no incluye solamente la circulación de individuos, sino también la forma en la que los lugares entran en relaciones inéditas, a través de "las trasferencias de bienes, capitales, ideas o practicas [que] acompañan o prolongan esas movilidades y funcionan como vectores de intercambio y de interacción social" (Cortes y Faret 2009:9) 1 . La característica central de este tipo de movilidad es la circularidad de los desplazamientos y la itinerancia multi-direccional de los actores sociales. Así, este tipo de movilidad se articula con la circulación de objetos, imágenes y representaciones. Desplegados entre diferentes regiones europeas, así como entre estas y el continente americano, estos itinerarios construyen y determinan rutas

O argumento deste texto se baseia em observações convergentes que vêm mostrando como, para além dos usos locais e regionais, a bebida conhecida como ayahuasca funciona hoje, nas redes globalizadas de suacirculação,ao mesmo tempo como signo diacrítico e como núcleo de negociação e distribuição de sentido e legitimidade, reconfigurando simbolicamente as relações entre os atores na nova interface entre grupos indígenas locais e o mundo urbano, latino-americano ou internacional. Entender o sucesso contemporâneo da ayahuasca implica pois compreender a dinâmica entre continuidade e criações culturais e sociais emergentes que constitui a trama histórica e presente de contatos e adaptações mútuas entre diversos povos amazônicos de um lado e entre o mundo amazônico e seus visitantes, representantes de sucessivos poderes externos, de outro.

Phyto-derived from the Greek phýein, meaning "to bring forth, produce, to grow, spring up" 1 and forming words with the sense "of relating to, or resembling (that of) a plant." 2 Future-that is to be, relating to, or constituting a tense expressive of time yet to come.PhytoFutures-speculative gestures of bringing forth, growing, and multiplying that-which-is-to-be-with-plants through collective imaginative practices.Plot-"African peasants transplanted to the plot all the structure of values that had been created by traditional societies of Africa, the land remained the Earth-and the Earth was a goddess . . . his funeral was the mystical reunion with the Earth. . . . Around the growing of yam, of food for survival, he created on the plot a folk culture. . . . This folk culture became a source of cultural guerilla resistance to the plantation system" (Wynter, 1971).You are delicious. So delicious that many moons ago our Ancestors made a sacred pact with your Ancestors, who consented to feed you to us once life left your bodies. Tenderly, in myriad elaborate funerary rituals, you gave your dead to us. Together with our fungi kin, we digest you and thrive from the compost that you become. Plant ones eat human ones (and many things besides) and human ones eat plant ones (and many things besides, all of which eat plant ones). Eating each other for millennia, humans and plants literally grew from one another, knowing (with) each other in deep, intimate ways. The rise of Man2 3 (Wynter, 1995(Wynter, , 2003 rendered (some) humans incapable of continued intimacy with plants, even mystified about the respectful intimacies that Indigenous peoples around the world maintained with plants. Jealous, perhaps, of the secrets still shared between plants and humans when love and respect prevail.Man made a science of itself. "Anthropology," it was called. A beautiful, archaic, egotistical science to document its own demise and fantasize its origins.For as the death of Man loomed, Men obsessed with identity, purity, and creation stories. Even as it strove to think relationality beyond its queer idea of self, it did so by reference to itself, referring to the beings that were not it as "nonhuman," "other-than-human," "more-than-human," needing transcendental spatial "beyonds" (Jackson, 2015) to unthink itself. Fundamentally, it was incapable of conceptualizing alterity (Ferreira da Silva, 2007; Irigaray, 1984). For the science of Man had been oblivious: defining, abstracting, and generalizing-in other words, invisibilizing-all that it excluded (Stengers, 2020). The loss of relationality-as a space of encounters-and the abstraction and the treatment of beings (such as plants) as objects led those who were objectified to no longer encounter those objectifying through reciprocal cycles of co-feeding. They became predators, devouring those who broke the pact (as shown by Fausto, 2007;