Sympathetic science: analogism in Brazilian ethnobiological repertoires among quilombolas of the Atlantic forest and Amazonian ribeirinhos

Abstract

Background Drawing on Phillipe Descola’s comparative analysis of ontological regimes across cultures, this article identifies analogism guiding ethnobiological repertories among two distinctive traditional tropical forest communities in Brazil. Methods We carried out participant observation, semi-structured interviews and informal dialog with 48 individuals, among quilombolas of the Atlantic Forest in southeastern Brazil and ribeirinhos of the Amazon. Results We documented 60 traditional practices governed by analogical principles, comprising hunting, ethnomedical practices, food taboos, and other interactions with non-human entities. We also identify and classify the analogical principles reported in the field data. Based on this classification, we address the phenomenological dimension of the ethnobiological repertoires and discuss the epistemological and ontological foundations of this form of reasoning. We also hypothesize on the role of analogism shaping ethnobiological repertories more generally in Brazil. Conclusion The heuristic model we apply—articulating phenomenology, epistemology and ontology—could prove valuable in ethnobiology and the emerging field of “anthropology beyond the human.”

Sensory Ecology, Bioeconomy, and the Age of COVID: A Parallax View of Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge

“…Beyond such crassly utilitarian interest, ethnographers and ethnobiologists have long marveled at the sophisticated taxonomic and ecological knowledge Indigenous peoples maintain about plant and animal species, ecological processes, and forest habitats, including elements that may complement or even rival contemporary scientific understandings (Abraão, Nelson, Yu, & Shepard, 2008; Bang, Marin, & Medin, 2018; Boster, Berlin, & O'Neill, 1986; Bulmer, 1974; Conklin, 1954; Fleck & Harder, 2000; Franco‐Moraes et al., 2019; Kimmerer, 2013; Parker, Posey, Frechione, & da Silva, 1983; Shepard, Yu, Lizarralde, & Italiano, 2001; ojalehto mays, Seligman, and Medin, 2020). Nonetheless, such ethnobiological studies tend to focus on practical, morphological, and taxonomic questions that appear to show congruency or complementarity between Indigenous and scientific systems, while steering clear of deeper ontological questions that appear radically different, even incommensurate (Furlan et al., 2020; Sheldrake, 2020; Prado, Murrieta, Shepard, de Lima Souza, & Schlindwein, 2022).…”

Directions In Brazilian Ethnobiology

“…I am not arguing against anthropology and ethnography, but rather against the claim that ethnobiology cannot be conducted without anthropology and ethnography. In my view, the lack of a more anthropological approach in Brazilian ethnobiology, or the limited use of ethnographic methods, is also due to the lack of interest of researchers trained in these traditions in ethnobiological studies, although there are notable exceptions (e.g., Prado et al 2020Prado et al , 2022Shepard Jr. and Daly 2022). Indeed, one of the reviewers of this article pointed out that Brazil may not have had a strong tradition of incorporating more anthropology into ethnobiology due to a limited engagement of Brazilian anthropology with the field.…”