Abstract
Published in French in 1996, the original article for which this comprises a post-script set indigenous Amazonians’ attitudes to meat alongside those of Euro-Americans. With the accelerating deforestation of Amazonia linked with the cultivation of soya used to feed animals for meat, and with calls to reduce or abandon meat consumption as one way of averting catastrophic climate change, it is topical once again. In this postscript, I reply to two contrasting critiques of the article, the first wary of an excess of ontology, the second distrustful of a deficit of it. Does a focus on ritual and shamanism obscure the wanton mistreatment and wholesale slaughter of animals in everyday Amerindian hunting practices? Does an appeal to sentiment ("bad conscience"), as a common dimension in indigenous and Euro-American attitudes to animals, risk obscuring important differences between the ontologies of the peoples concerned? Responding to these critiques, I defend the approach taken in the article and clarify my original, incautious use of the phrase "bad conscience."
Keywords
Amerindian ontology, animal personhood, mortality
Recommended Citation
Hugh-Jones, Stephen P.
(2019).
"Good Reasons or Bad Conscience: A Postscript",
Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America:
Vol. 16:
Iss.
2, 120-127.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.70845/2572-3626.1329
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti/vol16/iss2/8
Included in
Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Civic and Community Engagement Commons, Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, Folklore Commons, Gender and Sexuality Commons, Human Geography Commons, Inequality and Stratification Commons, Latin American Studies Commons, Linguistic Anthropology Commons, Nature and Society Relations Commons, Public Policy Commons, Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons, Work, Economy and Organizations Commons
