Commentary

Márcia Alves da Silva’s article in this issue looks at native sovereignty with a legal land base and a relatively self-governing local structure. Its identification of the social structure of the Kuna of Panama as matrilineal lends itself to the framework she proposes, a feminist analysis that deliberately avoids the colonial baggage of conventional theories.

Silva begins by discussing the contrasts between Kuna culture and the colonial structures and values and social hierarchy imposed on it, pointing especially to their relations to sexuality and the relative freedom afforded to young people. The Kuna respect their elders and dote on children, who are not as harshly disciplined as elsewhere. This, it turns out, is significant for the structuring of gender and the rights of girls and women. Because exchange relations are the province of women among the Kuna, significant latitude is given to gender identity and a gender-based division of labor. Indeed, women control or own much “property.”

Contemporary economics gets attention halfway through the article with discussion of the commercialization of the mola. For this the Kuna travel outside their territory, and because of it they have seen the arrival of all manner of commercial products (clothing, canned food, etc.). This discussion makes a distinction between tourist marketing (where men play a role) and the value given by local people to the more “authentic” pieces worn by Kuna women. The text is rich with respect to the social relations of production but could be stronger with respect to the marketing of petty commodity production. Some questions that could deepen our understanding of this craft include basic economic questions such as “What is the size of the mola market? How many women are involved? How many hours of work does it take a woman to produce a mola? What proportion of household income is attributed to this craft and its remuneration? What volume can be achieved? Are there problems with knockoffs (as is the case with Peruvian artifacts?). Does the government protect the intellectual property of the Kuna molas with any oversight? (France jealously guards its fashion brands worldwide.) Are the Kuna taxed? If so, how does mola production help meet that burden? Is mola production part of the Panamanian economy in any significant way?” Fieldwork makes for a rich and compelling narrative, but the field methods are not well explicated here.

In the concluding comment, Silva points out that the exigencies of the outside market impose standards that Kuna women resist. This deserves a much deeper dive. Finally, the article claims to be advancing a decolonial and feminist alternative to conventional studies. This presupposes a literature review that places this study in contrast to the preexisting literature that, presumably, perpetuates a colonial and sexist point of view. The inclusion of such a review might have helped show that the article had overcome this intellectual baggage.