Introduction

I started the research for this paper while studying abroad in Ecuador.  Along with taking classes in a university, I was working with the Coordinadora Política de Mujeres Ecuatorianas[1] (CPME).  My training in women’s studies/gender studies and anthropology, and my involvement in women’s organizations both at the university and local levels in the United States positioned me well consider women’s issues on a global scale, which was the intended focus of this paper.  While in Ecuador, I wandered into several bookstores looking for books and articles on gender in Ecuador.  The largest bookstore in Quito, the capital where I was living, did not carry any books on gender.  The books on gender in another bookstore were primarily translated western texts. The few Ecuadorian authors in the collection had only begun producing research on gender in the late 1980s[2].  The main academic bookstore primarily focused on the large indigenous population within Ecuador, with only a few texts discussing gender.  The combination of my interest in indigenous issues my involvement in indigenous political action in both Ecuador and the United States, attendance at the Conferéncia de Organizaciones y Nacionalidades Indígenas del Continente[3] (CONIC), and my commitment to feminist politics led me to focus my research on CPME’s involvement in the strong indigenous movement in Ecuador.  With this in mind, I purchased books on gender and indigenous ethnicity.  Still hoping to focus on the women’s movement, I searched for books and articles written about gender specifically in Ecuador or the Andean region.  Plenty of western and Latin American anthropologists and historians have written on indigenous concepts of gender and indigenous movements, but I could find no studies on white/mestizo gender in these regions. 

Due to the history of colonialism facing indigenous groups in the Andes, I was hesitant to shift my focus to indigenous women.  As a western feminist of European descent, I am hesitant to place myself as an authority on indigenous issues.  What right do I have to speak for a community with whom I do not share experience or history?  CPME, was created in response to the Fourth United Nation’s World Conference on the Status of Women in Beijing, a discourse in which I participate as a feminist activist. Within the indigenous communities and movements I am only an outside observer. 

This absence of Andean gender theory, causes me to question the popularity of Andean indigenous groups by western academia.  Colonial interest in the Andean region as well as the exotification of the “other” permeate the anthropological discipline.  While recent movements within anthropology, such as native feminist and postmodern anthropology, have critically examined the relationship between the anthropologist and the “other,” the fascination with foreign cultures and a tendency toward academic elitism pervades.  For western anthropologists, members of the societies which have authored and supported this colonial oppression, the Andean indigenous cultures constitute an exotic “other” to study.  The mestizo/white tradition, stemming from western culture, did not supply interesting educational material to the west.  Even with the best of intentions, most anthropology of the twentieth century has used knowledge of non-western cultures to merely expand the knowledge of westerners.  Was I going to add to this repertoire? 

Within this context, the separation of a specific indigenous culture from the colonial white/mestizo culture, dominant within Ecuador, is understandable.  This separation forms the core ideology of the Ecuadorian indigenous umbrella organization, Consejo de Naciones Indígenas del Ecuador[4] (CONAIE).  The rigid dichotomy between white and non-white has been used as a justification by those in power to delegate indigenous groups to a place of inferiority.  Even well meaning anthropologists, by focusing on indigenous cultures as an exotic “other,” participate in this assumption.  The revalorization of indigenous cultures, by indigenous people, is an attempt to turn the tables on this ideology of supremacy.  Throughout the history of colonization, the boundaries separating these races appear less rigid within daily life due to continuous interaction between both sides.  This blurring of boundaries through mutual, although not equitable, influence creates a paradoxical relationship between ideology and practice.   Political ideology does not inevitably follow into daily practice, nor does it necessarily limit individual relationships.  In fact this deviation away from ideology can encourage the creation of allies to rally around specific issues and acknowledge the possibilities of change. While not wanting to expand the rhetoric of colonialism, I intend to examine this paradoxical relationship between ideology and practice through an analysis of women indigenous leaders and their plural identities of race and gender within a cohesive indigenous movement and an ever-changing society which follows western practices of both racial and gender oppression.   

Since its foundation in November 1986, the Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (CONAIE), has functioned as an umbrella organization for identity-based indigenous movements in Ecuador.  CONAIE identifies three regional confederations within its structure: Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas de la Amazonía Ecuatoriana (CONFENIAE) from the Amazon region, Confederación de Pueblos de la Nacionalidad Kichuas del Ecuador (ECUARUNARI) from the sierra or Andean region, and the Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas y Negras de la Costa Ecuatoriana (COINCE) from the coastal region [CONAIE 1999].  This paper will focus on leaders and ideologies stemming from the Andean region because I lived in Quito, located high in the Andes.  I also studied both the Quichua language and Myths and Legends of Quichua under Luz Maria de la Torre who is from Otavalo, a town in the sierra.  The majority of  my interactions were with indigenous peoples of the Andes.

While its goals are diverse, CONAIE has united indigenous people in order to fight for economic, social and political power.  In reference to the claims of CONAIE, I will examine the formation and revalorization of a distinct cultural identity and how this coincides with the political battle against colonial and neocolonial ideas.  This assertion can be illustrated in three of the objectives elaborated by CONAIE in 1999. 

·        Consolidar a los pueblos y nacionalidades indígenas del país;

·        Luchar contra el colonialismo y neocolonialismo (empresas transnacionales en comunidades indígenas)

·        Fortalecer la identidad y sus formas de organización social;

·        Lograr la igualdad y la justicia en los pueblos y nacionalidades indígenas, por ende en la sociedad en general[5]

CONAIE 56-57

In order to achieve these goals, a cohesive image of indigenous identity must be established.  The consolidation of many indigenous groups into common goals broadens the effectiveness of a movement which is trying to reclaim an equal position in a highly stratified, capitalist society which has consistently treated indigenous groups as a minority.  This aversion to western economical and political structures, foreign or national, adds to my hesitation to speak as an authority on indigenous movements.  My political affiliations with indigenous causes, however, has allowed me good rapport with specific indigenous leaders, thereby, permeating the boundary between western foreigners and indigenous groups on peaceful terms.  On the first day of my Quichua class, Luz Maria de la Torre, expressed her optimism in our interest in her culture.  She hoped that we would become messengers, carrying Quichua ideology abroad in order to humanize groups which often get percieved as the inferior “other.”  Instead of being percieved as an exploitative invader, my alliance was sought out as a member of the western community, who might be able to spread knowledge of “la lucha” in order to gain support within the United States by members of an imperialist nation from which these groups are often alienated.  While creation of allies is an important step towards expanding the movement and gaining support, these relationships do not counter the cohesive cultural identity which precludes acknowledgement of the mutual influence created through both the formation of these allies and daily interaction between different indigenous groups as well as with the white/mestizo society.

Cultural variations are acceptable based on region, but the aspects which make up each cultural identity are portrayed as stable within that specific culture.  To emphasize the existence of indigenous groups which are separate from the white/mestizo state, Ecuadorian indigenous groups have established themselves as separate nations.   

Las nacionalidades indígenas, somos un pueblo o conjunto de pueblos milenarios anteriores y constitutivos del estado ecuatoriano, que se autodefinen como nacionalidades, que tienen una común identidad histórica, idioma, cultura, su cosmovisión; que viven en un territorio determinado, mediante sus formas tradicionales de organización social, económica, política y el ejercicio de la autoridad propia., leyendas y tradiciones[6]

CONAIE 1999, 60, emphasis in original

CONAIE has fought for the definition of Ecuador as a pluri-national state, but only received recognition as a pluri-cultural state.  The importance of autonomous nations would decrease the power that the centralized government would have.

At the core of the Ecuadorian indigenous movement is a construction of a culture separate from and more egalitarian than the colonial white society which has held power for over 500 years.  Within this amalgamated indigenous culture is an image of egalitarian gender duality and complimentarity.  Women interact within the private sphere, while men interact in the public sphere.  According to this cultural ideology, these roles are different, but each holds the same importance for the reproduction of society.  This ideal image conjures up visions of a better and more equal society in contrast to the highly stratified white/mestizo society.  The reality of daily life within indigenous cultures, however, does not mirror this image.  Male domination is apparent and often recognized by women indigenous leaders, even while they promote this image of their culture as egalitarian.

The rigid political construction of gender within the indigenous movement and the contradictory actions of individual members of the same movement serve an active purpose in the progression of this fight against oppression.  Each actor’s roles are constructed based on their position as a leader, an activist, a parent or a worker.  The essentialist gender construction allows for the cohesion of the indigenous movement on a political scale. By constructing a utopian vision of their community that starkly contrasts that of the mestizo community, the indigenous movements separate themselves and validate claims of their cultural heritage in a way that is difficult to dispute.  This construction is an indispensable support for the reinforcement of a culture changed by 500 years of oppression.  However, the contradictory actions and personal opinions of individual members of the movement testify to cultural change, create allies and allude to possible changes within the structure of the movement itself.  While a rigid image of cultural ideology is created by the indigenous movement, this does not restrict the actions of its members.  This observation follows Renato Rosaldo’s critique of structural anthropology in favor of processual analysis articulated in 1993.  While a structure, like that of the indigenous movement can be observed, the people within the movement do not necessarily always follow the pattern it sets forth.  Rosaldo’s processual analysis “emphasizes that culture requires study from a number of perspectives, and that these perspectives cannot necessarily be added together into a unified summation”  (Rosaldo 93).  This view allows for contradiction, ambiguity and spontaneity.  This form of analysis requires historical as well as contemporary analysis of many perspectives.  In applying this idea to women within the indigenous movement, I examine the historical and political contexts of both race and gender within Ecuador and the Andean region.  These contexts are illustrated from historical, anthropological, feminist, native and political sources.

Racial Ideologies

A complex history of conquest and domination has shaped the construction of gender, race and ethnicity in the Andes.  Although the indigenous people of the Andes make-up the majority of the population, they have been placed in a position of marginality for over 500 years [Orlove, 1993; Isbell, 1978].  Ideology of race and ethnicity has been constructed by intellectuals throughout the history of conquest in the Andes to best serve dominant interests.  This ideology proceeds from the dehumanization of indigenous groups by the early Spanish colonialists, to nationalist ideals of racial-mixing through cultural relativist arguments promoted by Andeanists concluding with the contemporary ideologies of cultural revalorization promoted by indigenous intellectuals.

Both western cultural relativist Andeanists, writing in the late 1970s and the 1980s and indigenous intellectuals, termed indianists, invoke an image of utopian pre-hispanic indigenous cultural ideologies.  The motivations for invoking this utopian vision of pre-hispanic culture, however, vary according to the political and personal perspective of the author.  While western Andeanists may intend to validate indigenous cultures in light of an oppressive culture these texts are geared towards a western academic audience.  The result of this analysis, despite the positive objectives, place indigenous peoples in the position of the exotic “other.” This “other” culture is percieved as static in comparison to western culture.  Cultural change is manifest in the internalization of  dominant ideals by indigenous groups.  Resistance to this is not extensively addressed.   As a contemporary western academic, I need to be careful not to contribute to this history.  Like Mary Weismantel in her book on race and sex in the Andes, published in 2001, I choose to actively position myself within the fight against oppression and cultural resistance to dominant ideologies.  My political activism in support of indigenous movements must extend to my scholarly work in order to comply with my goal of the destruction of this dichotomous racial ideology of oppression.  The indigenous movement is in part a reaction to oppressive images of race.  The cohesive images of race and gender, constructed by the indigenous communities, are utilized as a tool to reverse dominant ideas of racial hierarchy.  While these egalitarian ideals do not always extend into practice, an initial examination of these images and ideologies as portrayed by western academics and Andean intellectuals serves as a basis for further analysis.  By illuminating the history and diversity of Andean intellectual thought, I will attempt to expose both the positive and negative aspects of these approaches and place myself within this discourse.  This section will discuss racial ideology in the Andes, examine the interconnectedness of racial images and look at the history of revolution against racial oppression in Ecuador.

In the aftermath of the Spanish conquest, Incan and Pre-Incan groups were lumped into the non-elite majority by the Spanish elite.  A rigid dichotomy between the conquistadores (the Spanish) and the inferior who were conquered (indigenous peoples) emerged upon the successful occupation of the Andes.  This set the racial standards that would color the next 500 years of history in the Andes.  The ruling Spanish elite were juxtaposed with the supposedly backward peaseantry.  While Incan elites held some local power under Spanish rule, this did not change the dichotomous nature of race.  These curakas, or local goverments, functioned to control the peasant population preventing it from causing trouble for the Spanish elite.  The curakas were considered indigenous and therefore inferior despite their elevated position of power.  Spanish racial ideology dehumanized the indigenous peoples and violently oppressed them through slavery, high taxation and rape. (Silverblatt 1987)

Referencing Andean intellectuals writing about Ecuadorian racial ideologies around the time that Ecuador was established as a republic in 1930, Hernan Ibarra describes the indigenist discourse, “El indigenismo puede ser definido como una amplia corriente intelectual que inició una revalorización del indígena como una fuente de la identidad nacional[7]” (1999:74).  Ecuadorian Nationalism was popular and the goal was a mestizo or mixed state.  Nationalism was the political side of social theories of whitening and mestizaje (mixing).  Following this theory, the indigenous people would enter the nation-state by mixing with whites.  In this way they would lose percieved negative indigenous qualities and gain the “good” qualities of the white elite.  Ronald Stutzman explains this theory of whitening.

In Ecuador this ‘selective process’ is referred to as blanqueamiento — a putative lightening or ‘whitening’ of the population in both the biogenetic and cultural-behavioral senses of the term blanco.  The cultural goals, the society, and even the physical characteristics of the dominant class are taken by members of that class to be the objective of all cultural, social, and biological movement and change

(1981:49)

This intersection of cultures greatly favors one side over the other.  The culture of the dominant society is that which all should want and try to achieve.  Stutzman asserts that “The notion that people are willing and anxious to exchange ethnicity for nationality, to accept the goals of national culture and become blanco, has rarely been questioned in Ecuador or the Andes, in the Americas or the world” (1981:49).  This push to give up ethnicity in favor of the nation as a whole promoted an image of a racial utopia.  Norman Whitten refers to this utopia of racial mixing as ethnic homogenization.  He points out in his discussion of nationalism, that “The product of homogenization is sometimes called el hombre ecuatoriano, but this promise of ‘inclusion’ as ‘Ecuadorian man’ is contradicted by a focus on white supremacy” (1981:15).  By promoting mixing with the intentions of whitening the nation, the dichotomy of white as superior and anything else as inferior persists.  While racial-mixing could be reasoned as progress and development for indigenous peoples and as a solution to racist tendencies, the patronizing manner in which mestizaje slips into blanquemiento serves racist ideologies while making racism publically invisible behind the façade of a homogeneous society.  The ideologies of cultural separation by indigenous intellectuals serve to fracture this façade of a racial utopia.

Critics of Nationalist racial ideologies introduce the theory of what Hernan Ibarra refers to as neoindigenismo[8] utilized by Andeanist anthropologists and other non-indigenous intellectuals beginning in the 1960s.  “Este neoindigenismo corresponde en términos generales a una revalorización histórica y social del mundo indígena[9]”  (1999:77).  Neoindigenistas started writing about indigenous culturesof the Andes as populations with a superior way of life that is basically isolated from the rest of the population, often using leftist marxist analysis.    Orin Starn illustrates patterns within Andeanist anthropology. According to Starn, “Andeanism tended to plot the contrast in terms of the presumed individualism and alienation of the West against the communal ideals and closeness-to-nature of Andean culture” (1992:157).  These theories often ignore the connection between indigenous groups and “outsiders,” maintaining the manicheical dichotomy between dominant society and the “other.”  Dominant society was oppressive, but this top-down model does not take into acount the complexities of relationships within a given society and within the global culture.  This synchronic cultural-relativist position within anthropology, instead of improving the reputation of the indigenous people, puts them in a fixed position in history, without power over themselves and without their own voice.  While this disciplinary shift from traditional anthropology based in colonial practice was an attempt to assert the equal value of all cultures, this extremist approach tends to ignore existing power struggles by maintaining the intellectual superiority of non-indigenous theorists.  In this model indigenous groups do not have agency over their own lives.

Contrary to neoindigenista/andean theory, incorporation into national institutions, when negotiated with revolutionary indigenous ideas, provided space for social reform.  Institutions promoting national progress and absorption of indigenous peoples, instead of creating a whiter society, improved self-esteem allowing for cultural revalorization by indigenous groups.  The politics of the second half of the twentieth century started with agrarian reform and the National Literacy Plan (Plan Nacional de Alfabetización) of 1979 “promueven las condiciones para el desarrollo de las organizaciones étnicas, al crear un espacio de actuación y reconocimiento[10]”  (Ibarra 1999:76).  These organizations pushed for bilingual education (Quichua-Spanish), agrarian reform and inclusion in a society where they had been systematically oppressed for 500 years by the dominant society created out of colonialism and perpetuated by national state since its formation in 1930.

More than a new acceptance by neoindigenista intellectuals, the national development of the indigenistas created indigenous intellectuals who use education to give themselves power. 

El espacio de actuación del intelectual indígena se halla entre el ámbito de las organizaciones, el sistema escolar y espacios acotados de la esfera cultural controlada por blancos y mestizos.  Su papel se encuentra reconocido al desplazarse a otros intermediarios que hablaban a nombre de los indígenas[11]

(1999:80). 

Indigenous peoples took power into their own hands.  They created a new discourse.  Indigenous intellectuals reclaimed space for their own theories by using the existing system to their own benefit.

From this strengthening of indigenous cultures comes a relatively new theory called indianismo.  “El término indianismo, alude a las propuestas surgidas desde intelectuales indígenas que revindican la existencia de una sociedad indígena con sus propios valores que ha persistido a pesar de la opresión histórica[12]”  (1999:88).  The contemporary indigenous movement comes from this theory.  While not a homogeneous group, indigenous peoples were creating their own theories and using them to join forces and create an umbrella organization of indigenous groups within Ecuador.

This indianista movement, mirroring that of the neoindigenistas, was strengthened by the idea of a fundamental separation between indigenous cultures and the rest of society, represented by the state.  One of the most important demands of the indigenous movement was plurinationality.  The proposition was that “la población indígena ecuatoriana debe ser reconocida como nacionalidades con su territorio, lengua y tradiciones[13]”  (Ibarra 1999:83).  This was part of the proposition set out during the 1990 uprising.  The indigenous people were able to get Ecuador to be recognized as a “pluricultural and pluriethnic” state in 1998, which allowed for the state to maintain national hegemony.

The theory of indianismo is problematic, however, in that the very individuals who make up the category of indigenous intellectual have been strongly influenced in their creation of ideas by the western institutions in which they became intellectuals[14].  Often their personal actuation within public spaces, especially for women, deviates from essentialist notions of indigenous cultures they defend.  Like neoindigenismo these notions tend to negate the possibility of cultural change.  The very movement to become recognized by and work within the state is contradictory to their separatist tendencies.  This paradox, however, should not minimalize the power and agency afforded indigenous peoples through indianismo.  Deviations often are conscious actions which support the long-term goals of the movement.  While appearing to maintain an inferior positioning, indianistas use dominant ideological constructions, revalorize them and use them to resist hegomonic power.

The racial dichotomy presented here between mestizo/whites and indigenous peoples is useful for the nationalistic modes of progress through whitening, but become ideological rather than material when viewed as only two races/ethnicities within a diverse, heterogeneic country such as Ecuador.  Left out of this dichotomy is the variation among indigenous cultures located both within the Andes as well as in the Amazon and on the coast, and the large population of Afro-Ecuadorians, situated mostly on the Northern coast of Ecuador.  While lumped into the indigenous movement under the broad auspices of CONAIE, the Afro-Ecuadorian population is rarely mentioned in indigenous and dominant discourses.  This focus on indigenous cultures and exclusion of Afro-Ecuadorians can be traced to the population difference between these groups and more recently to the strong indigenous movements of the turn of the twentieth century and the lack of a parallel Afro-Ecuadorian movement. 

Despite diversity, emphasis has been placed, by the indigenous movement on the differences between themselves and others.  While the studies of Weismantel and Allen both written in 1988 express the internalization of nationalistic whitening strategies, the formulation of a strong indigenous movement, supported by arguments of cultural relativism, reinforces a rigid separation between indigenous and white/mestizo culture.[15]  Indigenous ideology promotes the revalorization of the egalitarian Andean community and highlights the corruption and oppression enforced through white/mestizo ideologies and state politics.  Dominant white/mestizo society also promotes a rigid hierarchy, creating an image of white/mestizo as the embodiment of positive, western, progress and indigenous people as backwards, lazy, and stupid etc.. The image of racial hierarchy, while primarily ideological, can be seen in practice, although not often in a rigid form.  The adoption of views of whiteness as progress by indigenous communities, as well as, the promotion of this hierarchy in the functions of the state influence the way culture is practiced.  The nations, ideologically constructed as separate, often influence one another. 

Reciprocity is one example of indigenous culture’s influence on the dominant culture.  In Ecuador traditions of compadrazgo[16] are very strong.  People choose god-parents for their children, who normally are people of a higher class-status.  The god-parents are responsible for the children and give them presents.  The favor is returned, although not usually through gifts of equal monetary value.  On a trip with an Ecuadorian mestizo professor to a community in the sierra, we visited a family whose children were the god-children of our professor.  He brought the children clothes from the city.  The family responded by picking vegetable from their farm for the professor to take back to the city.  This mirrors kinship patterns very much alive in cultures indigenous to the Andes (Allen, 1978) 

The internalization of this hierarchical ideology is shown clearly in discussions of education and progress within Andean indigenous communities.  In Mary Weismantel’s analysis of the “better” schools in Zumbagua, she sees a process of acculturation promoted by the white sector. 

The basic skills learned in these schools include attitudes and behaviors that will enable [indigenous] children to hide their rural, indigenous background to some extent when they seek jobs in the cities. ...Zumbagua parents see these lessons not as demeaning, but as necessary in order to learn how to think like, and so compete with indigenous Ecuadorians

1988:78

This internalization of whiteness causes indigenous peoples to devalue their own cultural heritage, opting for the economic and social mobility afforded by integration into the state society.  Alternative methods of education have also been created.  Through bilingual education, Weismantel argues, indigenous children can better assure economic survival while retaining their cultural heritage. As the adoption of bi-lingual education proves, not all indigenous people within the Parish of Zumbagua accepted the necessity of whitening strategies nor their position within the dominant racial hierarchy. 

On a cultural level, Weismantel points to the holes within this racial dichotomy created through mutual adoption of cultural aspects of the supposed opposite culture.  “Just as Ecuadorian Spanish is colored by Quichua and Zumbagua Quichua is peppered with Spanish ..., so the elements and fragments of the two cuisines are interpenetrated.  If the boundary between the two is permeable, it is real nonetheless” (1988:123).  Weismantel sees the adoption of platos tipicos, usually with indigenous origins as Ecuadorian and the usage of this cuisine on a daily basis as a form of this permeability.  I experienced, through living with a mestizo family in Quito, not only the usage of indigenous food, but also the proliferation of Quichua words in the Spanish dialect prevalent in the city.  Although a manipulation of the original, the words ñaña and ñaño are used daily to refer to brother and sister. 

This mutual influence is wrought with implications of power and inequality.   According to Weismantel, in her study of residents of the parish of Zumbagua in the Ecuadorian Andes, “there is a direct parallel between the distinction made between Indian and white and the social dimensions of wealth, gender and age” (1988:76).  This structure is set up so that there is a hierarchy of

white over Indian, man over woman, rich over poor, “savvy” post-hacienda generation over “backward” pre-hacienda generation.  The relations between these polarities can be seen in the overlap between them in symbolic representations.  Wealth, and especially the possession of cash, is associated with whiteness.  Ambitious indigenous people frequently can be identified by their eagerness to master “white” behavior and dressing styles

1988:76

The association of white with power and wealth and Indian with backward, was internalized within cultural constructions as well as within conceptions of self, despite the mutual influence.

Through nationalist ideologies, promoted by the state, the encouragement to join the state meant, not an equal mixing, but rather an adoption by indigenous cultures of white characteristics.  Norman Whitten Jr. shows the formation of this ideology of racial inclusion within the relationship of the state and the Andean indigenous populations of Ecuador.  The Ecuadorian state sought to solve the racial dichotomy to their own benefit.  “The false resolution of the opposites is found in the doctrine of mestizaje, the ideology of racial mixture implying blanquemiento, whitening” (1981:16l).  By emphasizing racial mixing, the dominant white/mestizo society could avoid accusations of racism, while maintaining their power through race

While the racial hierarchy in its manifestations is very real, the permeability of this dichotomy outside of the sphere of political rhetoric could be the key to deconstructing the hierarchy through mutual understanding.  The closer the association by whites/mestizos to indigenous cultures, the harder it becomes to perpetuate the racial ideologies of privilege.  The increased number of indigenous peoples in institutions of higher education, political organizations, and the government within Ecuador, although theoretically promoting whiteness, allows closer interaction between the two sides.  I believe that personal relationships forged within these elite institutions ffect the ability and desire of the dominant society to perpetuate myths of superiority.  Indigenous leaders receiving political positions may seem to put the fight for separate nations in a precarious situation by joining the state they are attempting to oppose, but this can be viewed as using the master’s tools to break his/her house.  By gaining political power both independent of and within the state, indigenous leaders are breaking down the image of inferiority projected by the racial dichotomy.

While indigenous leaders have gained some power within the state and mutual influence abounds, race is still constructed within a dichotomy.  In a later work, Mary Weismantel illustrates that while the word mestizo is commonly used, “in actual practice within specific social contexts, there is no intermediate or ‘mixed’ racial category: race operates as a vicious binary that discriminates superiors from inferiors” (2001:xxxi).  The construction of racial ideologies, separates the “superior” whites from “inferior” indigenous people.  While racial mixing has been encouraged, the products of miscegenation are often simultaneously ridiculed due to their intermediate status within indigenous groups while being relegated to the category of “other” by whites/mestizos.

Even though racial mixing theoretically upsets the rigid racial dichotomy providing a homogeneic and anti-racist society, racism persists.  Deborah Poole suggests that the fluidity of race and the lack of specific categories in the rhetoric of racial ideology in the Andes adds to the dominance of racial oppression.  “The very slipperiness of ‘race’ is the strongest indication of its power, its hold on our own social and political imaginations, and its presence in the shaping of modernity” (1997:216).  This “slipperiness of race” can be seen in the internalized aspects of race in everyday life.  It is impossible to separate race from the ideologies that have been constructed within a racial dichotomy for over 500 years.  The indigenous movement harnesses the power equated with race for revolutionary goals.  The rhetoric of racial supremacy is intertwined with the daily lives of indigenous people.  Only through a separation and acknowledgement of the roots of this racial oppression can the indigenous groups attempt to escape their inferior position within Andean society.

While it might seem counterproductive to the Ecuadorian movement to reinforce the racial dichotomy by positioning themselves as a culture separate from the mestizo/white society, this revalorization of the indigenous culture is used as a tool to counter racism.  In Mary Weismantal’s discussion of her usage of the derogatory term “Indian” she points to the word’s power.  “The hateful word indio, too, has been reappropriated by those who would use its shock value for anti-racist ends”  (2001:xxxiii).  The adoption of this terminology by the indigenous groups takes the power of these words and this “inferior” culture away from those who have used it for racist ends.

The power of the racial ideology as interpreted by the indigenous movement is apparent in the indigenous uprisings of 1990, 2000 and 2001. These actions are a manifestation of the discontent with the social-political domination promoted by the mestizo/white population in Ecuador.  Organized by CONAIE, the blanket indigenous organization in Ecuador, these uprisings were a response to 500 years of oppression.  Other indigenous uprisings in Ecuador had not been successful, mostly due to their size and their make-up of specific indigenous communities.  CONAIE’s broad base and inclusive strategies created a real threat to those in power.

The 1990 uprising was a response to the unicultural formation of the Republic, the lack of implementation Agrarian Reform of 1964 to fulfill the needs of the indigenous peoples and the incongruence of the Western capitalist mode of production adopted by the state.   According to Fernando Rosero in 1990, the indigenous “valores o códigos morales han sido atropellados, vilependiados o transgredidos por el Estado y la sociedad nacionales en el curso de la transición del modelo desarrollista al modelo neoliberal[17]” (1990:21).  In reaction to this model, indigenous peoples revolted.  The pressure exerted on the government, asserted through methods such as the blocking of main roadways and the overtaking and the holding of primarily mestizo areas such as the church of Santo Domingo, resulted in changes by the state, including the redefinition of Ecuador as a pluricultural nation.

The indigenous uprising and coup d’etat of January 21, 2000 was mainly a response to increased poverty and the overt corruptions of Jamil Mahuad, the president of the Republic at this time.  Especially upsetting, were his decisions to freeze the bank accounts of millions of Ecuadorians in order to pay off foreign debt (and to buy houses in Miami for those bankers who supported his campaign) and his decision to dollarize.  Through the temporary coalition the military and the indigenous movement, Antonio Vargas, the president of CONAIE, general Carlos Mendoza the ex-president of the Supreme Court and the chief of the Armed Forces, and the lawyer Carlos Solórzano overthrew Mahuad and entered the presidential palace.  What exactly happened inside the palace remains a mystery, but two hours after their success Carlos Mendoza renounced his position and withdrew the support of the military.  Gustavo Noboa, the vice-president of Mahuad was called in to claim the presidency (Puertas 2001a).

His presidency, however, continued many of economic measures promoted by Jamil Mahuad.  In the end of January, almost 10,000 indigenous people arrived in Quito, despite the government’s attempts to detain them, in protest of the economic measures, such as the raise in bus fare and the ineffectiveness of the dollarization of 2000, taken by the government.  This time the government empowered the military and the Armed Forces to take any steps “necessary” in the suppression of the protesters.  The military arrested the protagonists, shut off the electricity and water to the university housing the indigenous groups, and restricted the entrance of supplies and the president declared Ecuador to be in a state of emergency.  These measures, however, only fueled the resolve of the indigenous peoples and the level of support given to the uprising (Puertas 2001b).  As the deaths, injuries, and economic expenditure increased, the government had no choice, but to negotiate.  Several compromises were reached, including the mandatory implementation of discounts in bus fare.  The dollarization process continued on course, only extending the time period allotted for sucres to be exchanged for dollars.  Through these uprisings, sponsored by CONAIE, the strength and power of the indigenous peoples in response to oppressive governmental structures became increasingly evident.

This section has examined the differences in racial ideology and practice.  The dominant racial ideology is dichotomous and the indigenous movement has imitated this dichotomy for anti-racist ends. Deviations from this rigid separation emerge, however, in an examination of daily practice.  This paradox allows for the deconstruction of racist tactics creating allies while recognizing the diversity in individual experience.  The image of a racial dichotomy is evoked for both the purpose of maintaining the power structure by dominant society, and reversing the relationship of racial hierarchy by the indigenous movement.  Race, however is not the only aspect of identity important in this fight against oppression.  The necessity for this paradoxical relationship between group ideology and individual experience can be illuminated through an examination of the gendered aspects within the indigenous communities and the movement itself.

Gender Concepts in Indigenous Ideology

At the core of the indigenous movement in Ecuador is a revalorization of pre-hispanic ideologies, which have been subjugated to over 500 years of colonial and neocolonial oppression.  Both western andeanists and indigenous leaders evoke an egalitarian, complimentary, dual and gendered ideology at the core of the Andean indigenous world-view.  While western andeanist anthropologists may discuss the Andean indigenous world-view with anti-racist and anti-colonialist intentions, they often position themselves, the western intellectual authorities, in contrast to the cultural “others” they study.  The racial dichotomy between white/mestizo and indigenous is often left out of the relationship between anthropologist and informant.  Andean indigenous intellectuals and leaders reclaimed agency and developed a discourse, which uses similar images to illustrated by andeanist anthropologists, with the political purpose of cultural validation and resistance to dominant society.  I use both indigenous and western descriptions of the gender ideologies in indigenous communities to establish the construction of gender within indigenous communities.  Through an illustration of indigenous concepts of gender I can create the background for an analysis of the ways in which these concepts are utilized by indigenous women leaders as well as their critics.    Indigenous women leaders of the Andes enact a paradoxical relationship between their actions and the pre-hispanic gender ideology advocated by the indigenous movement.  How can a woman who has a college degree argue that women should conform to an ideal society that places women’s role in the home?  To answer this question the cultural context of gender within indigenous communities needs to be established.  There are three important Andean concepts which are necessary to my analysis of the actions, motivations and critiques of women leaders in the Ecuadorian indigenous movement: complimentarity, duality and reciprocity.  Basing my analysis in historical as well as field-based studies serves the dual purpose of not only explaining indigenous concepts of gender, but also the history of indigenous women under colonialism by the Incas and Spanish, and neocolonialism through foreign capitalist corporations, such as those supported by the United States.

Under Incan rule, change in pre-Incan Andean social structure came from the imposition of a centralized government over formally self-sufficient diverse communities.  Unlike the Spanish who enforced rigid structural changes in their colonies, the Incas allowed for a continuation of many of the ideologies which were already present.  Through parallel lines of descent, Andean men and women had equal access to communal lands and subsistence located with the kin-based community or ayllu.  Social, economic and political power on the community level was shared.  Silverblatt states of the pre-hispanic Andean peoples that “Andean gender ideologies recognized that women’s work and men’s work complemented each other.  Their interplay was essential for Andean life to continue”  (1987:9).  Both genders played an essential and equally important role in the reproduction of society.  Even as a colonizing force, “the Incas stuck to this conception of interdependent male and female activities as the keystone of the labor process” (Silverblatt 1987:14).  While imposing a class stratification which influenced the formation of a gender hierarchy, the Incas respected the idea of gender complimentarity.  This form of colonization allowed for cultural practices to continue, which were later forcefully suppressed under Spanish colonial rule.  The contemporary Ecuadorian indigenous movement seeks to revolt against the Spanish imposition in order to retain the cultural, political and economical status indigenous communities retained before the conquest.  While Incan rule was also repressive, Incan ideology has been invoked in an idealistic manner as a utopian society in contrast to the oppressive Spanish colonial government.

The Incan state mirrored the gender complimentarity found within the communities.  Established as the state, was the Inca (descendent of the sun) to rule over the men and the Coya (descendent of the moon), his wife, to rule over women.  Officially women had the same rights as men in regard to political and legal status.  Religious deities, tied to the royal couple were instituted along parallel gender lines as well.  (Silverblatt 1987).  This idealistic version of equality evoked in indigenous movements, however, crumbles on closer inspection.

Within the rhetoric of the Incan conquest itself was a highly stratified society, which was not gender neutral.  Those who took part in the conquest were symbolically male, while the conquered were characterized as female.  This parallelism, rooted in pre-Incan ideology, took shape in an unequal gender hierarchy.  Silverblatt asserts that “only men could be legitimate founders of lineages based on conquest; … Andean categories of social structure, coupled with Andean metaphor, attributed social power to men”  (1987:75).  Through social status, men had power to give and take women.   While the Coya officially held power over women, the Inca had the power to pick indigenous women, acllas or wives of the sun, to give to high ranking men as a reward, treating women as a commodity.  While the benefits to the fathers of these girls were great and being chosen as an aclla a special honor, the decisions over these women’s lives were controlled by men who held more power based on both class and gender.  It was not the women who gained from this transaction, but rather their male relatives and the man to whom she was given[18].  Even while rooted in forms of gender complimentarity, gender hierarchy had been well established before the Spanish conquest.  The image of pre-hispanic culture as utopian is false, but the reality of this cultural ideal is not as important as the purpose for evoking this image.  Acknowledging this difference might fracture the cohesive movement towards the revalorization of culture for anti-racist ends.  In this case it is the purpose of evoking the idealistic conceptualization of culture that gives validity to the ideologies at the core of the Ecuadorian indigenous movement.

Under Spanish rule any ruse of gender complimentarity was shattered.  The kinship patterns and legal rights of the Andean communities were severely disrupted by the imposition of Spanish law.  Silverblatt states that “Spanish law classified married women as legal minors.  This meant that any legal transaction into which a women entered had to have the prior authorization of a man, who acted as her ‘tutor’” (Silverblatt 1987:119).  Women no longer held any official power according to the state.  The Spanish recognized children as the descendants of their fathers, thereby eliminating the lines of parallel descent through legal patrilineal rights.  While these changes do not necessitate an ideological shift, the path was opened for men to assert their dominance within indigenous communities.

Not only were Andean women legally oppressed, but they were also often physically and sexually abused.  Silverblatt uses the chronicler, Guaman Poma, a Spanish man horrified by the atrocities of the Spanish conquest, to illustrate the abuse women suffered.  Poma recounts the subjugation of women by the Spanish, especially the priests.  Silverblatt quotes Poma’s horror that “…priests are supposed to educate boys only, but they get girls as well, and the parish priests take advantage of this order to have concubines at their disposal and consequently dozens of children, augmenting the number of mestizos”  (1987:142).  The dehumanization of indigenous women through rape illustrates the complexity of their status not only as indigenous, but also as women.

With the Spanish conquest, the role of religious ideology changed from tolerance to suppression.  Catholicism, while attempting to wholly convert the masses, resulted instead in an amalgamation of Catholicism and local religious practice.  In a rural indigenous community in Peru, Catherine Allen recorded that the mythical origin of the sacred practice “Hallpay (coca chewing) was invented, they say, when Santisima María, Our Mother, lost her child.  Wandering aimlessly in her grief, she absentmindedly plucked some coca leaves, chewed on them and discovered that this eased her pain” (1988:21).  The result of the meeting of two cultures can be seen in the origin myth of this vital Peruvian Andean ritual.  This is one of the many ways in which Spanish cultural practices are written on the cultural practices of those they conquered, even in societies which maintain many of the traditional Andean cultural aspects.  This cultural internalization of the dominant culture by Andean indigenous communities makes the effort to fight against dominant oppression difficult.  The validation of an idealistic culture is necessary in order to reverse this process of internalization.

According to Allen the conception of God among the runakuna (“the people” in Quechua) is greatly affected by the Catholic imposition.

The Runakuna’s relationship with God expresses the ambiguity and multifacetedness of their historical, social, and cultural situation.  Imposed on a traumatized population after the Spanish Conquest, the Catholic God, modeled on the Hispanic patrón, epitomizes Hispanic domination.  He has nothing to do with the Runakuna, yet they live and die to his benefice.

(1988: 52) 

She goes on to explain the conceptual relationship between the Incan god of the sun and the Catholic God, both being celestial beings.  The correlation between God and the hispanic patrón demonstrates, not only the religious impact, but also the impact of economic structures on Andean communities.  Like ethnicity and gender, the boundaries between institutions such as religion and economy, while appearing rigid are highly permeable[19].

Silverblatt makes a point, however, in placing women at the forefront of the battle against colonial tyranny, fighting the influence of Christianity and the Spanish who imposed it, which might appear to be contradictory to their status within dominant gendered and racial hierarchies.  Women escaped to the mountains, where they could attempt to be free of their religious and political persecutors. 

Actively participating in a religious underground, opposed to christianity and its secular political mainstays, Andean women defended themselves as colonized women.  In this way, they helped direct the history of the colonized Andean peoples, marking paths for the defense of indigenous culture

1987:213

Women, traditionally the bearers of culture in indigenous Andean communities, used this role in defiance of a repressive regime.  In this tradition of subversion, contemporary indigenous women continue to validate pre-hispanic cultural ideology and fight the changing, but continually oppressive powers that attempt to control their lives and their status.  Indigenous women leaders emphasize their position as bearers of culture to advance their cause, even while their position as political leaders often replaces their role as the reproducers of culture within their own homes.  The attention paid to their families is lessened by their commitments outside the community.  This often comes as a necessary sacrifice for the promotion of ideologies, which will theoretically allow indigenous women to fulfill this role in the future.

The claim to a pre-hispanic culture is the core of the indigenous movement in Ecuador.  While, as apparent from the historical context presented, many influences have shaped the nature and the ability to hold onto these cultural beliefs, several concepts have persisted through the repressions.  The indigenous Andean communities generally trace their ideologies to pre-hispanic culture, but make little distinction between pre-Incan beliefs and Incan beliefs.  The claim to a pre-hispanic versus Incan or pre-Incan heritage allows for reversal of the dichotomy of racial inferiority and superiority substantiated by Spanish colonial rule.  Many, including Luz Maria de la Torre, claim heritage directly from the Incas.  It is my belief that these gender constructions are an amalgamation of the pre-hispanic culture; a culture with ideologies which have persisted despite the Spanish intrusion and the increasing global economy.  To understand the complexity of these gender ideologies in relationship to the present indigenous movement, it is first necessary to describe the main concepts of Andean gender ideology. 

According to Luz Maria de la Torre, an Ecuadorian indigenous activist and professor, the Andean concept of duality and gender complimentarity constructs and influences every aspect of Andean life.  “La Totalidad Andina se transforma en la Totalidad Feminina y la Totalidad Masculina.  Dos Universos existentes, que se oponen pero se unen complementariamente para su accionar y su propia realización[20]” (1999:12).  Each whole is composed of two parts, which are different but complementary.  Masculine and feminine characteristics define every object, person and aspect of society, culture and ideology, making the male/female duality crucial.  Luz Maria de la Torre uses the analogy of the male/female pair as being two sides of a single sheet of paper; each gender represents a separate part of the same unit, neither having more power than the other. 

In indigenous Andean ideology, not only is the world divided into two, but each pair has a complimentary pair making a foursome.  The existence of four elements is sacred in the Andean cosmology, stemming from the Incan empire called Tahuantinsuyu (land of four).  Every part of this foursome, whether embodied in humans or not, is gendered.  In Catherine Allen’s explanation of the formation of k’intu offerings of coca among the Bolivian indigenous communities she explains the bunching of pairs as symbolizing masculine and feminine elements.  “While each man or woman is a complete individual with both male and female qualities, the two unite to form another individual of a higher order: a warmi-qhari, nucleus of the household” (Allen 1988:85).  Andean society is structured around the needs of the household, only sustainable in the Andean world-view, through the male/female pair.  Within this pair exists four gendered aspects.  Both men and women hold the opposite gender within, while their named gender remains on the surface. 

Cada Hombre es un hombre afuera y una mujer adentro.  Y la mujer, su opuesto, el mundo femenino afuera y el interno el mundo masculino.  En la unión de los dos, la dualidad nos hace ver que son dos hombres y dos mujeres, el TAWA sagrado, se cumple[21].

de la Torre 1999:20

This pairing allows for fluidity in gender roles.  Men are expected at times to act in feminine ways while women are expected to show masculine characteristics.  It is this flexibility in gender roles which allows for women to become indigenous leaders, despite the traditional female role within the home.  Through this image of gender women can take on traditionally male characteristics.  It is the union of characteristics and not necessarily the biological sex which matters. 

Luz Maria de la Torre uses this explanation of gender not only to explain her community’s world-view, but also to contrast her ideologies with western ones.  She sees western ideologies of gender as being fixed, rigid and completely oppositional.  The Andean view, however allows for fluidity within the prescribed gender characteristics and complimentarity between the sexes.  Male and female roles compliment each other.  Both are different, but both are needed in order to create a whole.  They are two pieces of a puzzle, only to be whole when united.  This male and female unity discourages involvement in a women’s movement, because this might fracture the unity between women and men promoted by Andean indigenous ideology.

Specific daily activities exemplify the ideology of complimentary gender roles. Luz Maria de la Torre places women in the role of protector while men are in the role of creator.  In their, role, women are in charge of taking care of the home, the children, the father and the land.  Men are responsible for community decision-making, creating ideas and making change.  Women belong close to the nucleus of home, while men are responsible for the outside world.  Women are more connected to the Earth and space, while men are entrenched in the non-physical ideals.  Mary Weismantel sees this concept illustrated in the community of Zumbagua through the physical placement of bodies within a household.  When a group is gathered in a home, “men sit above ground while women sit on it” (1988:179).  This connection is also illustrated in weaving techniques as described by both Luz Maria de la Torre in her classes taught in 2001 and Catherine Allen in 1988.  Only men have the strength for weaving on an upright loom, while women may do weaving at a horizontal loom, closer to the ground.  Most aspects of indigenous Andean activity have dual, complimentary aspects relegated to the female or male sphere. 

Power within the duality of gender is also affected by both genders within their role as masculine or feminine.  While men hold the power to make public decisions, these decisions are affected by women.  According to Allen, this public influence “gives men in their prime an edge in control of community affairs—but only an edge, for when the assembly ends, they go home to face their wives and aged parents” (1988:120).  While men hold power within the community, women hold power in the home.  Men depend on their women to complete their role in the home, just as women expect men to complete theirs in the public sphere.  When one or the other does not fulfill their duties the equal balance is shifted.  In her analysis of food in Zumbagua, Mary Weismantel explains how women affect the cultural structure through their power in the home.  “The order in which people are served is [an] indication of social status.  Decisions regarding this order belong to the woman doing the serving, normally the senior woman of the house” (1988:179).  Not only is the social hierarchy created outside, but also within the home.  Women help create and perpetuate this hierarchy.  While these analyses give some power of resistance to indigenous women to the men within their own society, they overlook indigenous women’s participation in resistance to larger institutional structures.

Mary Weismantel succeeds in escaping analysis of culture as isolated, by exploring the impact of economic structures in Zumbagua, Ecuador. She acknowledges the interdependency between the primarily white/mestizo, capitalist city of Quito, and rural Zumbagua, the primarily indigenous community she studied.  While women migrate to Quito, mostly to participate in the markets, the increased involvement of such communities in the capitalist state have forced men to leave for the capital in order to enter the wage market.  Men leave the home for the job market, leaving the tasks normally associated with the masculine role for the female head of household to manage.  According to Weismantel, “Men come back at the periods of peak agricultural activity and when their wives are soon to give birth ... But on a day-to-day basis, women must manage the farm and care for old and young on their own” (1988:176).  This entrance into the wage market by men has left the women with more work as well as more responsibility and power within the community.  Due to a different conception of wealth this role of male wage worker shows a shift in ideology based on an economic influence from the mestizo/white centralized power.  “According to indigenous ways of thinking, ..., neither idle hours nor small change for bus fares counts as wealth.  Wealth consists of land, livestock, and access to labor” (Weismantel 1988:82).  This shift from subsistence farming to wage-labor greatly affects both indigenous levels of poverty and gender roles.

While life in the indigenous community for women greatly depends on the status of her husband, and this relationship is monitored by the community, the shift to wage labor allowed greater independence for men and more responsibility for women.  Life in the city, however, is not always welcomed by indigenous men.  “The stability of indigenous life represented by the female role is of tremendous psychological importance to young men as they try to survive in the city, a battle that often involves hiding one’s indigenous heritage” (1988:182).  Through this shift women are left with the responsibility for the maintenance of cultural ideals.  This paves the way for women to become leaders in the indigenous movement, which bases itself on the revalorization of an oppressed culture.  While this struggle in the city is difficult, and the women’s role in the community becomes even more important, the independence offered by the city, away from the judgment of the community, often allows men the opportunity to ignore familial responsibilities.  While many men return home, “Others respond by partially or totally abandoning their wives” (Wiesmantel 1988: 183).  The economic independence allowed men emphasized the gender gap.  This gap, highlighted through the adoption of neoliberal ideals and practices by the state, provides the impetus for a revolutionary movement, which would favor indigenous women’s role in society. 

While westerners might point to this as proof of patriarchy within indigenous culture, the origin of gender hierarchy in Spanish colonial ideology cannot be ignored.  The responsibilities placed on women by the absence of their husbands markedly shows a gender gap that was not as apparent previously. 

...many First World feminists see the exhaustion of peasant women as evidence of the oppressive nature of precapitalist systems.  They fail to perceive that the burden a peasant woman bears is the absence of the men who should be sharing her work, men whose labor is being absorbed by the capitalist sector

Weismantel 1988:177

The gender gap within indigenous communities cannot be analyzed without recognition of the ways in which mestizo/white economies intersect and influence them.  Unfortunately this intersection requires men to leave home and women to stay at home doing the work necessary to maintain the family. The seduction of an idealic past where gender inequalities are lessened would gain support by women, as a reaction to the imposition of these economic measures.

Women Indigenous Leaders in Ecuador and Their Relationship to the Women’s Movement

Within Andean gender ideology women and men hold complementary and equal roles within society.  This utopian image of gender, well worth fighting for, does not always apply to contemporary experience in the Andean region.  The essentialism in this gender ideology is a necessary part of the indigenous movement as a whole and requires that both women and men stand by this claim to equality.  Does this essentialist assertion negate involvement of indigenous women in a movement equated with the advancement of women specifically?  The women’s movement in Ecuador, embodied in this study by the Coordinadora Política de Mujeres Ecuatorianas (CPME) tends to relinquish responsibility in dealing with issues of ethnicity, while claiming to serve all women in Ecuador.  Can gender and ethnicity be so easily separated?  Can these two movements work together, or do their political foci create impermeable boundaries?  The answers to these complex questions require a discussion of the ideologies promoted in these identity based movements, the critiques made by members of one against the other, the places where the boundaries between the two are crossed.  I believe that the rigid construction of identity politics within each movement is necessary for their effectiveness, but that this rigidity is often softened in daily practice.  These seemingly contradictory instances show support between the movements, acknowledgement of the validity of both causes, and the need to recognize diversity within the populations affected by the movements. 

While women involved in the contemporary indigenous and feminist movements in Ecuador have publicly criticized the ideologies surrounding each movement, they have also become allies, learning to support one another when acting politically on a specific issue such as poverty or workers rights.  The pervasive indigenous Andean image of complimentary gender roles of equal importance to the function of society and culture has lead to critiques of the western feminist movement for its call for women to leave the home and move into the workforce[22]. While indigenous women have overtly denounced western feminism as they understand it[23] in Ecuador, activists in the Ecuadorian women’s movement, such as those involved in CPME tend not to publicly criticize the indigenous movement, but rather disassociate themselves with responsibility or authority for dealing with indigenous women.  While silence pervades CPME on the ethnicity issue, recently Ecuadorian feminist intellectuals, such as Magdaléna León in her book written with Carmen Deere in 2000 has critiqued not only the treatment of gender in indigenous movements but also the indigenous women who support and lead the indigenous movement.  

The role of white/mestiza women in Ecuadorian history has only been recently acknowledged and the women’s movement did not get the funding or have the energy to grow until the United Nation’s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995.  It was out of this conference that, in 1997, CPME, a non-profit Ecuadorian women’s political organization was formed to help Ecuador comply with the governments plan of action formed out of the Beijing conference and to facilitate the participation of women in politics.  CPME is funded by many sources, mostly foreign.  CPME was constructed to help women of all classes and ethnicities.  Like the indigenous movement, CPME is structured as an umbrella organization.  The leaders who formed CPME come from various established organizations such as Mujeres por la Democracia and the Consejo Nacional de Mujeres (CONAMU)[24] as well as women from various women’s intellectual circles not affiliated with an organization[25].  While their main focus during the time I was working with them was political participation of women, focus areas are diverse and cover everything from violence against women to art to the environment.  Once women get into power, or take power through the vote, they, theoretically, will address the multiplicity of problems and issues facing Ecuadorian women.  While CPME does not officially declare themselves a feminist organization due to polemic problems with this term, individual members define themselves and CPME as feminist.

CPME has accomplished much in its short existence.  CPME, along with the rest of the women’s movement, pushed for inclusion of women’s rights in the constitutional reform in 1997, achieving the inclusion of women’s fundamental liberties, equality based on gender, laws against violence against women, reproductive rights and equal work for equal pay.  Unprecedented in other constitutions world-wide, the new constitution of Ecuador in 1998 also recognized unpaid domestic work as productive labor.  CPME also publishes investigative works and produces a monthly newsletter. 

While the Mestiza/White women’s movement started fairly recently, indigenous women have been recorded as leaders within the indigenous movement since the Spanish conquest.   Irene Silverblatt, points to women’s responsibility within indigenous ideology to resist the cultural imposition by the Spanish colonialists directly following the conquest.  “From the indigenous point of view, women became identified as the upholders of traditional Andean culture, the defenders of pre-Columbian lifeways against an illegitimate regime” (1987:195).  As part of women’s role within Andean gender ideology, they protect culture and therefore have often been and continue to be at the forefront of the gender movement.  Silverblatt describes the persistence of women in practicing and maintaining native religion during the early colonial period as an aspect of cultural resistance and asserts that this “cultural resistance was political subversion” (1987:207).  Through their devotion to their cultural identity as indigenous women, they laid the groundwork for revolution.

Along with the traditional role of women as bearers of culture, the material shift in the economy allowed for women to take leadership roles in the Andes.  In Ecuador, under the domination of the hacienda system instituted by the Spanish men were responsible for working in the haciendas, while women worked in the home.  I initially viewed this point as an indicator of female subordination, but Mercedes Prieto in her work on Ecuadorian indigenous women leaders points to this as creating a system where the women were more likely to stir up rebellion.  Men depended on good relationships with the Spanish hacenderos in order to provide for their families, but “la falta de acceso al usufructo de lat tierra de la hacienda permitía a las mujeres actuar en las luchas contra los administradores y propietarios de las haciendas sin que ello implicara arriesgar la base de la subsistencia de sus familias[26]” (1998:18).  While taking away women’s rights to land ownership and use under this oppressive system, indigenous women could act in a space that was not directly contingent on the actions of the ruling class.  Women were not legal actors and their position as outsiders to the Spanish system aided in their ability to act in revolutions.

This materialist explanation is only one of the aspects that allow or discourage indigenous women to act in public political movements.  The access to bilingual education, the rigidity of gender roles within the specific indigenous community, the expectation of women as mothers and the status of her family all contribute to the ability for indigenous women to be active (Prieto 1998).  Bilingual education is a prerequisite for leadership positions in indigenous movements outside the local community.  Indigenous communities in the Ecuadorian Andes often speak their native language, the most common of which is Quichua.  As a result of indigenous movements, and specifically the leadership of Dolores Cacuango, many local schools offer bilingual education which serves both to revalorize the local identity as well as allow for increased interaction and education for indigenous groups.  Like the status of the leaders family, however, access to higher education is limited by class status even though many of the racial barriers to education have been decreased.

The flexibility of gender roles within the indigenous communities often reflect the vast amount of changes inflicted by the tempestuous history of colonialism such as the infringement on the property rights of women or the frequent migration of men to the cities to engage in the wage labor system as subsistence farming no longer functions to sustain a family.    While rigidly portrayed in the ideology of the indigenous movement, it is this forced flexibility which allows for women to enter into positions of leadership. As we have seen, these changes can function to the detriment of indigenous women, in the case of women being regarded as legal minors, or their empowerment, through a certain freedom from the responsibility of interaction within the market economy.

Marriage or motherhood often works to limit the activity of indigenous women in the public sphere.  While some indigenous women can manage to juggle the domestic responsibilities with political participation, Prieto asserts that “…por lo general, las lideres indígenas mayores han debído apartarse del ciclo esperado para una mujer.  Muchas de ellas no se han casado, o bien no han tenido hijos[27]” (1998:28).  This serious obstacle often places indigenous women leaders in the position of denying a large part of the cultural expectations created by the very same cultural identity they are attempting to defend and revalorize.  While this may seem contradictory I see this as a part of the sacrifices (assuming the leader wanted children) made by the individual for the betterment of the whole.  This decision of balance or choice between motherhood and career is not unique to the indigenous movement, but rather confront westerners and indigenous leaders alike.  It is an issue I have grappled with on a personal level, even though it seems to me that the pressure in my community, to have a family is not as strong recently as the pressure to have a career or a job.  For those of us who want both, sacrifices must be made.

This discrepancy between the gender roles explicit in the ideologies of the indigenous movement and the role of women as leaders is apparent in the contradictions I found within the discourse and personal lives of both Luz Maria de la Torre and Rosa.  While both asserted in their critique of the women’s movement the necessity of women to be able to take care of the home instead of being pushed into a career, both women had families, even though Rosa was divorced.  Luz Maria de la Torre, during a conversation I had with her after class, stated that if women follow feminist thought, there would be nobody to take care of the house and the children because all women would work outside of the home.  I found this statement fascinating in comparison to her career as an intellectual, activist, professer and her family of five.  I found myself asking who was taking care of her children?   This must have been a difficult choice for her.  For leaders such as de la Torre this paradox between political ideology and personal practice is a necessary element to further the movement.  While I disagree with the limitation of feminism to second wave ideology as expressed through their descriptions of a feminist, I agree that the influences of feminist thought pushes many middle to upper class women who might have had the choice to stay at home or work, to build careers first and then choose between career and family or to find a precarious balance between the two.

Despite these limitations, indigenous women can be found in some of the highest political ranks in the Ecuadorian indigenous movement.  The head of international relations for CONAIE is Blanca Chancoso.  Nina Pecari, the most widely used example of the ability of indigenous women to achieve high status, was the vice-president of the congress as well as one of the main leaders of CONAIE.  Women are often seen leading the indigenous marches and indigenous women can also be seen teaching a the most prestigious university in Ecuador, USFQ where I had the privilege of studying under Luz Maria de la Torre.

While many feminists working in Latin America have shied from a firm critique of the indigenous movement’s approach to gender, authors such as Magdaléna León, a prominent Columbian mestiza feminist working in Ecuador and Carmen Diana Deere, one of the leading western intellectuals in the area of economics in Latin America addressing Brazil, confront this despite harsh criticism by indigenous women leaders for its accusatory tone and negative implications for the indigenous movement.[28]  According to León and Deere, a lack of congruency between the feminist and the indigenous movements within Ecuador is apparent.  In their analysis of this situation, these authors verge on a conspiracy theory with their claim that women are placed in visible public positions within the indigenous movement in order to promote an image of gender equality which does not actually exist in “reality.”  According to these authors indigenous women do not have significant political power, but the exceptional cases where a woman achieves power are normalized for the purpose of supporting an idealistically egalitarian image of gender.  While these authors insert valuable points about paradoxes between ideology and practice within the indigenous movement, they fail to address the positive implications in these seeming contradictions.  Ideology and practice are juxtaposed, negating each other.  I believe that both ideology and practice work together for similar goals: the advancement of the Ecuadorian indigenous population, including women, in the face of western colonialism and neocolonialism. 

While women such as Nina Pecari and Blanca Chancoso, the head of international relations in CONAIE, can be used as examples of gender equality within the indigenous movement, their exceptional circumstances make these instances unique and their uses as proof of gender equality thin according to León and Deere.  “El liderazgo de las comunas ha sido tradicionalmente masculino, y aunque en los últimos años parece haber aumentado el número de mujeres en cargos dirigentes, se calcula que menos del uno por ciento de los líderes elegido en las organizaciones mixtas de nivel de base[29]” (2001:309-10).  This portrays the inconsistency between public myth of complimentarity and gender equality and the reality that exists within the communities themselves. León and Deere fail to address the barriers that indigenous women have to overcome in order to achieve a career in politics. Leon argues that women are key players in the promotion of indigenous communities as egalitarian, while ignoring the gender oppression within these communities. 

This analysis of women’s role in the indigenous movement by León and Deere accuses indigenous women of perpetuating gender inequality by not addressing the subordination of women.  This assertion puts the responsibility for gender inequality in the hands of the indigenous community and fails to account for the origin of indigenous women’s inferior status in the history of colonialism.  Mercedes Prieto argues that “no existen factores culturales locales que expliquen la subordinación de la mujer, sino que son los factores ideológicos de la clase dominante de la sociedad ecuatoriana los que construyen los modelos de feminidad y masculinidad[30]” (1998:25).   While there is no denying the inferior status of indigenous women, the origin does not fall into the hands of the indigenous communities themselves.  This does not mean that the indigenous movement should not address the issue of women’s status, but rather that the broad goal of escape from the domination of the colonial and neocolonial elite in Ecuador can be perceived as an initial step in the advancement of indigenous women.  Responsibility for gender oppression within indigenous communities should be claimed by indigenous peoples through their acceptance of dominant gender hierarchies.  The indigenous movement advocates for the rejection of dominant ideologies including those of gender inequality.  While not pursuing a gendered movement, women leaders are working towards a more egalitarian gender ideal and therefore have similar goals to those of the women’s movement. 

León and Deere assert that the women’s movement’s goal is to break the public/private polarization, bringing women to power in order to achieve their rights in the public/political sphere.  Women are fighting to make individual, civil and political rights relating to the private sphere visible in public debates.  Rights to health, education, work, political participation and general development are being fought for through feminism.  Along with attaining the same rights as men, women have struggled for rights specific to women, such as reproductive and sexual rights. (León and Deere 2001).

The indigenous struggle for land, according to León and Deere, has been a struggle first against the colonial displacement of indigenous peoples and more recently against neoliberal conceptions of private property.  The indigenous movement, when focusing on land issues, centers around the assertion that collective ancestral rights to land should come before individual rights.  León and Deere point to two reasons for this assertion.

 ...dada la historia del colonialismo, existe un argumento moral a favor de la restitución de tierras y territorios a los pueblos y comunidades indígenas. ....[y] el derecho a la propiedad colectiva de la tierra es la base de la identidad cultural indígena y resulta indispensable para supervivencia misma de los pueblos indígenas[31]

2001: 287

These goals create the need for an indigenous movement focused on collective rights and cultural relativity.  Both of these needs have been met through the formation of a utopian image of a pre-hispanic, egalitarian society based on complimentarity and duality.  The assertions of Andean ideology illuminated by Luz Maria de la Torre and discussed further in previous sections are an example of the form which this image has taken in indigenous academic texts. 

These efforts for recognition and a revalorization of indigenous cultural ideals received international response in the form of article 169 of the United Nations in 1989.  This called for an acceptance of the existence of other nationalities within an individual states, although official recognition of