Lucas Funaro

UCSB, Writing 2 – Prof. Allison Bocchino

The Guaranis: Studies Under Different Disciplinary Lenses

Many values and beliefs that contemporary societies carry are a result of, among other

things, the political, social, and cultural history that shaped a particular society into what it is

today. When looking at countries that were born from an exploratory colonial system, such as

Brazil, several ideals that are now part of “popular belief” were actually based on the principles

of imperialism. Social Darwinism, a model that tried to scientifically prove the superiority of

certain ethnicities over others, is one example of an imperialist ideology that left significant scars

on the Brazilian modern society: the underlying prejudice in social Darwinism is something that

prevailed since colonial times until today, especially towards native Brazilian populations. As a

consequence, the discrimination and negligence towards the native population become frequently

evident through actions of disrespect to their culture, their land, and fundamental rights. In

contrast with this saddening reality, many scholars and researchers are now focusing their

attention on the native populations as they play a fundamental role in determining the identity of

the Portuguese language, the Brazilian culinary culture, medical knowledge, and the arts to name

a few.

As the importance of studying the native groups became clearer, different disciplines

turned their focus to distinct aspects of native Brazilian culture, history, anthropology, and

biology as a way of better understanding the people who first occupied the South American

continent. The articles “(Neo)Shamanic Dialogues: Encounters between the Guarani and

Ayahuasca” by Esther Jean Langdon and Isabel Santana de Rose, and “Major histocompatibility

complex (MHC) class III genetics in two Amerindian tribes from Southern Brazil: the Kaingang
and the Guarani” by Susanne Weg-Remers et al. both address the topic of Guaranis (a native

Brazilian group) but under essentially different disciplinary lenses. The first and second articles

are, respectively, part of the disciplines of anthropology, which falls under the social sciences,

and biology, which deals with the natural sciences and is heavily based on mathematical models.

After analyzing and comparing both articles, it is possible to say that their differences in

argumentation, primary object of study, and organization as well as the word choice, are all

characteristics of the disciplines’ individual discourse community and also demonstrate their

individual expectations and norms.

In terms of argumentation and collection of evidence to support arguments, both articles

demonstrate different approaches. The biology article “Major histocompatibility complex (MHC)

class III genetics in two Amerindian tribes from Southern Brazil: the Kaingang and the Guarani”

based its argumentation on empirical evidence and, more specifically, experimental data. The

article starts with the “Introduction” section where, in order to assign confidence to experimental

data, the authors make an effort to contextualize the focus of their study by citing several

previous studies on the same subject. By doing so, the authors state the validity of their results,

the importance of their contribution to the body of knowledge of the discipline, and the main

purpose of the study, which in this case was to investigate the genetic variability and population

genetics (gene frequency) of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) in indigenous tribes

of Brazil.

Just like most biological articles, the argumentation heavily relies on the rigorous

application of the scientific method as a guiding principle for not only demonstrating logical

construction of cause-and-effect relationships, but also for collecting, analyzing, and

understanding the experimental data in an organized manner. Ultimately, the confidence built
around arguments is, in this case, primarily from the results of the study where the analyzed data

is shown. Under the “Results” section of the text, the authors include several tables showcasing

the raw data collected throughout the experiment’s methods which allows the reader to visualize

and make sense of the data by themselves. The raw data, however, is many times challenging to

interpret even for specialists in the same field, so it is common, and even expected, for the author

to clarify and interpret the content of tables and images. One example of that can be seen in

“Table 4” where the raw data for the PCR test results were included and followed by the author’s

explanation, stating that the “PCR analysis of the polymorphic XbaI site showed that both

variants with and without the restriction site are present at the C4A and C4B loci of the GRC
1
(Table 4).” This demonstrates a common practice in the academic biology community in

which, even though it is necessary to include the direct results from experiments mentioned in

the article, some level of clarification is always expected.

In contrast with the first biology article, the text “(Neo)Shamanic Dialogues: Encounters

between the Guarani and Ayahuasca” did not base its arguments on evidence from experimental

results or statistical analysis, rather, the argument was constructed based on evidence from

previous literature such as books and academic journals, and primary sources such as interview

transcripts. Besides that, the authors did not make use of quantitative data (data expressed by

numeric values) like the biology article did, instead, they relied on qualitative data (descriptive

and conceptual data) as means of creating valid deductive arguments. On page 48 is possible to

see an example of the use of primary, qualitative sources (in this case, an interview) to construct

an argument: the authors state that “Celita Antunes discourse below reflects a perspective held

by most participants in the rituals that affirms the authenticity of ayahuasca as a source of the
1
S. Weg-Remers et al., “Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) Class III Genetics in Two Amerindian Tribes
from Southern Brazil: the Kaingang and the Guarani,” Human Genetics 100, no. 5-6 (1997): pp. 548-556,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s004390050550.
ancestral knowledge about tradition and culture (...).”2 followed by an excerpt from an interview

with Celita.

It is important to remember that another less obvious difference, but still significant,

between both articles has to do with the contribution of each paper to the collective body of

knowledge of their respective disciplines, which is still directly related to their mechanisms of

argumentation as previously discussed. While the biology article makes use of its arguments and

evidence to support a new discovery on the frequency and distribution of genes in Amerindian

populations, the anthropological article uses its arguments to support a new point of view on

contemporary shamanisms.

Another characteristic that can be used to better understand the differences between the

disciplines of biology and anthropology is the main object of study of each article. When talking

about the main object of the study, I am referring to what aspects of the overlapping topic (in this

case the Guarani people) are comprehended and looked at by the articles. Anthropology as a

discipline studies various features of human societies including their culture, organization,

history, and development. Accordingly, the text “(Neo)Shamanic Dialogues: Encounters between

the Guarani and Ayahuasca” looks at the Guarani people, but more specifically at their cultural

practices and behaviors. On the other hand, the biology essay focuses its analysis on the genetics

and molecular biology of different populations of native Brazilian tribes, looking at the

biological phenomena rather than behavioral phenomena. Although it sounds obvious that

biology studies biological processes and anthropology studies society’s dynamics, the different

object of study present in each article is a key aspect that influences many other features of both

organization and content of the texts. An analogy can be made with the differences between a
2
Esther Jean Langdon, and Isabel Santana De Rose. "(Neo)Shamanic Dialogues: Encounters between the
Guarani and Ayahuasca." Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 15, no. 4 (2012):
pp. 48. doi:10.1525/nr.2012.15.4.36.
poem about food versus a recipe: although both are written pieces about food, the process of

writing a poem involves creative thinking, textual organization into a stanza, and subjective ideas

while writing a recipe requires no creative process since it is an objective and precise description

of how to make food. In the case of the poem, the object of study is not the organized linear

order of preparing food that results in a specific dish, so the process and methods involved in

writing are essentially different.

When reading both articles, one of the biggest differences between them is with regards

to the organization of the text and how the information is presented to the reader. The more

objective scientific nature of biology is reflected in the manner the text is organized as it is very

well structured in such a way that it almost reflects the distinct steps of the scientific method.

The article begins with a very descriptive and objective tile, followed by the abstract which

provides a complete overview of all the other parts of the text. The introduction is also a very

concise section of the essay in which the authors state the motivation of the study, the

background knowledge relevant to the understanding of the subsequent sections, and how new

findings can be used for further research. Meanwhile, the anthropology article also starts with a

title but in this case, it is much less descriptive and contains a subjective use of the word

“encounters” which is used in “(Neo)Shamanic Dialogues: Encounters between the Guarani and

Ayahuasca” not in the literal meaning of the word but rather in the meaning of “relationship”.

Apart from the title, the anthropological study has no demarcated introduction section and uses

the introductory paragraphs of the text to historically contextualize different topics. Lastly, the

information regarding the results and conclusions of each article is presented in very distinct

ways: the natural science paper counts with several tables, images, and diagrams in order to

transmit the results in a direct and organized way; the social science paper describes the results
and conclusions of the study as paragraphs containing the authors’ analysis of how the Guaranis

incorporate ayahuasca in their rituals.3

Based on the analysis of the texts, it is possible to conclude that the organization,

argumentation, and primary object of study present in each article reflect the differences between

the disciplines of biology and anthropology as well as between the discourse communities of

each discipline. The article by Esther Jean Langdon and Isabel Santana de Rose provided a new

way of understanding the relationship between the Guaranis and shamanism as a product of

dialogue while the article by Weg-Remers offered a new discovery in the area of human

genetics. With regard to argumentation strategies, Langdon and de Rose successfully supported

their idea through the analysis of primary and secondary sources and constructing a series of

deductive arguments organized into paragraphs and based on previous studies and textual

evidence. The biology essay, on the other hand, organized their findings into a well-structured

article that demonstrated their results through the realization of empirical experiments which in

turn provided a data set used to draw significant conclusions. We can thus see how both

scholarly communities expect formal writing, well-supported arguments, and clear organization

but require mathematical modeling and more objective evidence from biologists, and more

subjective evidence accompanied by critical analysis from anthropologists.

3
Esther Jean Langdon, and Isabel Santana De Rose. "(Neo)Shamanic Dialogues: Encounters between the
Guarani and Ayahuasca." Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 15, no. 4 (2012):
pp. 48. doi:10.1525/nr.2012.15.4.36.
 WORKS CITED

Esther Jean Langdon, and Isabel Santana De Rose. "(Neo)Shamanic Dialogues:

Encounters between the Guarani and Ayahuasca." Nova Religio: The Journal of
Alternative and Emergent Religions 15, no. 4 (2012): 36-59. Accessed January 25, 2021.
doi:10.1525/nr.2012.15.4.36.

Weg-Remers, S., M. Brenden, E. Schwarz, K. Witzel, P. M. Schneider, L. K. Guerra, I.

R. Rehfeldt, et al. “Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) Class III Genetics in Two
Amerindian Tribes from Southern Brazil: the Kaingang and the Guarani.” Human
Genetics 100, no. 5-6 (1997): 548–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004390050550.