Close encounters

Abstract

The contributions to this volume present a range of insights into Maya worldviews, from native engagement with history to time, cosmology, and creation. For the Late Postclassic and Colonial periods, varieties of expression are described from cave art to architecture and from ritual paths to dancing. My broad goal is articulated by Don Rice (1989:4), who reminds us that what is lacking in archaeological reconstructions of Maya society is the system of beliefs that mediated the decisions and activities that we propose took place on the basis of our interpretations of material culture. Most scholars would agree that our knowledge of ancient Maya thought pales in comparison to what we know about Maya physical lives (Burns 1983:4). This chapter is an effort to use what I know about the colonial encounter and late Maya history (Graham 1991, 1998, 2009; Graham et al. 1989) to bring aspects of Maya and Spanish worldviews into focus, not least because "[a] touchstone of understanding for an anthropology of a Maya history is Maya world view" (D. Rice 1989:4). In addition, I critically examine the encounter between the Maya (our subjects) and us. My first step is to examine a range of concepts that we employ in describing Maya worldviews; my rationale is based on the idea that knowing ourselves better helps us to know the Maya. I also explore "what concepts do for us" by examining a range of terms that we commonly use in describing or referencing Maya beliefs, such as "religion," "science," "worship," "warfare," and "sacrifice." I hope to show that we must recognize that these concepts have histories or we will limit our depth of understanding. Finally, I experiment with different/same and inside/outside standpoints to introduce new takes on old ideas about Maya worldviews. What I have termed "inside/outside standpoints" are not the same as objectivist versus subjectivist stances as articulated, for example, by Pierre Bourdieu (1995). In the objectivist construction, social phenomena are treated as having to be explained outside the conception of those who participate. But this "outside" way of explaining (in accordance with the Durkheim maxim) is supposed to be scientific and outside consciousness, whereas subjectivism reduces the social world to representations that agents make of it. In a sense, both my "inside" and "outside" perspectives are subjectivist or perhaps even phenomenological in that I try to imagine how it would feel to be part of a group, and what it would mean to stand outside the group. Standing outside, however, still involves an agent's representation of what it means to be "outside.depth of understanding. Finally, I experiment with different/same and inside/outside standpoints to introduce new takes on old ideas about Maya worldviews. What I have termed "inside/outside standpoints" are not the same as objectivist versus subjectivist stances as articulated, for example, by Pierre Bourdieu (1995). In the objectivist construction, social phenomena are treated as having to be explained outside the conception of those who participate. But this "outside" way of explaining (in accordance with the Durkheim maxim) is supposed to be scientific and outside consciousness, whereas subjectivism reduces the social world to representations that agents make of it. In a sense, both my "inside" and "outside" perspectives are subjectivist or perhaps even phenomenological in that I try to imagine how it would feel to be part of a group, and what it would mean to stand outside the group. Standing outside, however, still involves an agent's representation of what it means to be "outside. © 2009 by University Press of Colorado. All rights reserved.