I think there is good reason for an international scene discussion about ethics and our responsibility . With all interested groups . From us to scientist to buisness people . To talk about cultural sustainability , about the way drug tourism can affect a culture and agree on some recomended behaviour . I dont mean rules , control or elites .

I'm talking about things like the situation in some countrys where the culture get zapped by tourists , golf courses and ice skateing rings in the jungle ........ full of day trippers doing a two week one drug a day world tour .

About falsifying culture , rituals and ceremonys . About the way we treat the people . About them getting benefit from us going there and not just them being unpaid victims of it .

And also about money babas and sharlatans .

Think Maria Sabina . Think Eleusis . Think what killed it ? Think drug tourism .

Do we want that ?

In my opinion the sellout has already started .



I'm not talking about control or people forcing things on others .

I think you're confusing drug tourism with Alaric, King of the Visigoths. It was "drug tourism" that sustained the Mysteries for millennia. The Mysteries ebbed along with the classical Roman Empire, but they weren't wiped out until Alaric and his Visigoth army came along.

Everybody has dirty fingers, under the microscope.

The whole thing sounds like the standard commercial "solution" in search of a not-yet-trademarked "problem".

I'm sure Sachamama is more than capable of taking care of her own affairs, without ESC's "help".

Morris Crowley

I read . Basicly said . The mysterys were secret . The secret got out to " tourists " and they started throwing partys useing it in the city . The authoritys found out about it and there was trouble about it . That was the beginning of the end of those mysterys and what lead to their end .

@ Ethnobotanical Stewardship Council (ESC)

I didnt read the links . I saw then for the first time when they apeared . I didnt get passed the second word . Pinky " thinks " he can be a steward over other peoples lives and culture ? Without being asked to do it ? Without asking if they could do it ?

Hi everyone,

I came across this article about the ESC, which sheds a new light on this organization.
Like many of the people here I was in favour of this, but after reading this I don't really know if I still am.

What are your thoughts on this? Can we actually forget and dismiss the indigenous way and impose our Western ways on a tradition and lifestyle that goes way back?

https://culturaladmixtures.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/amazonian-ayahuasca-tourism-and-millenarian-imperialism-the-story-of-the-ethnobotanical-stewardship-council/

Please merge with existing thread https://www.dmt-nexus.me/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=62282

Thanks

This is actually a different article

Further comments to come...

I did do a quick search, but didn't get any result before. My apologies for not adding this to the other post.

So, as food for thought...

Why target the ESC, specifically? This is something that I don't fully understand. Is it because they are attempting to carry out field research/ground-level engagement, which could be understood to pose a greater potential for harm than other problematic phenomena?

The reason I pose the question in this format, is because it seems somewhat selective to target the ESC as especially problematic.

For example, we have discussed reset.me here at some length. If we look at the critiques leveled at the ESC we can easily apply the following to reset:

-Lack of indigenous representation (or perhaps "coverage" in this case)
-Market orientation, commercial language, and promotion of Ayahuasca tourism
-Lack of scientific evidence and rigor
-Problematic representation of expertise in the field
-Misappropriation of the voice of ayahuasca

We could also add
-Clear colonial mentality vis-a-vis psychedelic plants and shamanic tourism
-Lack of any harm reduction framework (especially in the forum)
-Pseudoscientific claims passed off as fact, presence of sensationalism, aims of psychedelic celebrity

Additionally, we can find some of these problematic themes running through other events and organizations.

Two questions we might ask of other institutions and events:

What does it mean to hold a global ayahuasca conference in Spain? Why was there no discussion of the colonial legacy of Spanish conquistadors on the indigenous populations who use the very preparation the conference was focused on?

Why was there minimal indigenous representation at Psychedelic Science 2013? Why did the ayahuasca experts roundtable discussion consist of "experts" discussing indigenous wants and needs when only a singular indigenous voice was present?

Slightly less-related questions we might also ask:

Why does MAPS collaborate with Reset, specifically via social media?

Why has MAPS collaborated with snitches, namely John Halpern and Krystle Cole?


As a final point, I would refer folks to Alex Gearin's: Amazonian ayahuasca tourism and millenarian imperialism: The story of the Ethnobotanical Stewardship Council (linked above)

Throughout this essay, Rak Razam is cited several times, owing to an interview he did with Wickersham. In this article, the Razam/Wickersham interview is used to highlight the role that the ESC is playing in ayahuasca commodification. But Rak is also hosting ayahuasca retreats. This isn't a criticism, merely an observation. So some commodification is "good" and some commodification is "bad"? Or is there another piece to it?

Some of my questions are:

When examining non-indigenous commodification, why are some types of commodification apparently OK?
What justifies acceptable non-indigenous commodification and who determines it?
Why are some organizations scrutinized/critiqued more than others?
Do apparent benefits outweigh problematic behaviors so much so that we overlook questionable actions of flagship institutions?
What might it look like to call out/attempt to act on all of these patterns, regardless of institutional source?

Thoughts?

@ Snozzle

In my opinion the biggest issue here is the fact that ESC is trying to impose certain rules to shamanism by banning sorcery etc. As far as I know Reset.me does not try to do this.

Reset.me says in a very Westernized way: hey guys, look at what wonderful properties these plants have. Check it out!

ESC goes a step further by saying: these are the good properties and these are the bad, let us eliminate the bad for you so that you can enjoy it more and less problems occur.

In this way they are actually telling us which shamans are good based on their recommendations. The question is, what about all the other unknown shamans who do good work? I also wonder if the sorcery question can actually be left out of this, because as far as all the books and interviews I've read about shamans, ALL OF THEM claim that sorcery is REAL. So how will they be able to perform the ceremonies without applying their frame of mind of which they are an integral part?

As a personal opinion I would like to state that this is all going the wrong way literally. I believe Western people should not be going to the Amazon to have this type of experience, but the experience should be brought to the West so that we can try to create a model that works for the Western mind which works differently because it believes different things. This would both benefit the ecological and psychological effect.

All of this could be done by integrating the ancient knowledge and applying our own ways to it and not by trying to change the ancient knowledge. A very good example of this is Gabor Mate's work with ayahuasca, where he lets the ceremonies be done by a shaman and prepares the patient with psychotherapy before and after the ceremony. I think this is the only way to go and by doing this we will then be able to have our own shamans using our own models based on our psychology.

@ Elpo:

Strongly agree with everything you said.

The future, if we have one at all, will be a synthesis of their knowledge and our technology.

ESC have a dangerously naive view of the indigenous worldview, and are no better than any other missionary/colonial invader, hoping to "save" the dark people from themselves.

A bit more humility from us pale-skins would not go amiss.

I understand that this is your opinion, but this response doesn't satisfy me personally for two major reasons.

First, the people who signed the initial letter didn't frame it that way. They didn't explicitly state that issue until their fourth point, although it could assumed to be a component of the third point, and that's out of a total of 12 points raised. Second, as I attempted to demonstrate, we could apply many of those criticisms to other organizations/institutions. My comparison to reset (and questions re: a couple other events) was just to make the point that there are related issues with at least some of the major psychedelic conferences/institutions.


But that's my point...this worldview is clearly not limited to the ESC...so...?

I mean, shouldn't this problematic issue be addressed anywhere it appears, not just where it is perhaps easiest to do so?

I whole-heartedly agree, but to echo your own question earlier what do you think that might actually look like? We know that the ESC is most definitely not an exception to this mentality, as it pervades many other major psychedelic institutions; but it would seem that precisely because of the fact that the ESC is an "easy target" that is drawing so much attention unto itself that it provides an ideal foundation (or stepping stone) for the psychedelic community to begin engaging in a dialogue about these issues. We have to start somewhere. So in my opinion it's not trivial to focus on the ESC but it is paramount that we don't end the discussion there. We absolutely need to continue drawing connections with other circles and institutions which might not be as obvious in their rhetoric, or as convenient or easy for us to target.

The questions you pose are all great and I don't have any good answers for you, unfortunately. But to share some of my own thoughts; I think the fact of the matter is that some of these 'flagship institutions' have been around a lot longer than the ESC and have established themselves as an authority and source of trust in the psychedelic community. The ESC is relatively new and their mission statement is extremely bold. Why the ESC and not Reset.me or some of these older, more trusted projects? Well for one, I think the ESC poses a more immediate threat to indigenous peoples in Latin America than Amber Lyon or similar endeavors. What the ESC aims to do is direct manipulation of traditional indigenous culture and to me it seems like they aren't even trying to veil it as something else. Sure, Reset.me is problematic, but is Amber Lyon really threatening indigenous culture in a way that is proportional to what the ESC is trying to do?

Like I said I think we need to start somewhere. The ESC is an easy target but the impact of their work is so imminent to indigenous peoples that in my eyes it should take some priority over other problematic psychedelic projects. That said, I think we still need to make those larger connections. The ESC is not the only psychedelic institution to embrace a neocolonialist worldview and we can't ignore that, but they do provide an easy "in". The fact that they are an easy target that so many people are already focused on can be seen as strategically advantageous. Start with the obvious elephant in the room that most of us can already see, and use it as a platform to raise up some of the other animals in the room that less of us can see.



Sure, ayahuasca isn't going anywhere...but what about the indigenous cultures which first utilized ayahuasca and have done so for thousands of years? Y'know, the people actually responsible for it...they matter too, right?

Now that I think of it, reset.me feeds the ESC in its endeavours as it brings the information to a whole other platform of people. But hey, isn't this what we wanted?

I think we should put the focus more on lessening the tourism to the Amazon for the sole purpose of trying an indigenous brew. I am not talking about those people who are really into a shamanistic training, but of those who just go there once for the experience.

Instead like I said above, we should focus on creating new models so we can do the healing in our own countries, with our own set and setting. With this I don't mean that the indigenous way is worthless or less important, but by focusing on us we automatically would leave them in peace.

It would be much more respectful towards them if we would invite them to us instead of barging in over there.

The ESC has released a new reply within the last few days btw..in case people here have not read it yet...I cant remember the link to it atm but it's out there you can find it. I would suggest reading it before this thread continues.

The ESC letter jamie referenced:

Dear members of ayahuasca drinking communities, experts, and fellow seekers:

(Read this letter in PDF format on the ESC blog here).

Because the ESC is a community-based initiative, we want to take seriously all input from those involved in ayahuasca practices and who are concerned about its future.

Due to recent critiques by experts who have expressed their serious concerns about the fundamentals of the ESC and its approach, we have decided to put the Ayahuasca Dialogues on hold to go back to basics and engage in an open conversation with everyone who wants to share feedback and critique the ESC’s approach and vision. We want to be 100% sure that the ESC constructively serves the future of ayahuasca in the globalized world and is not the cause of unintended consequences. Therefore, it is important to take the necessary time for reflection, analysis, and revision. We will continue to seek relevant experts’ guidance at every stage of our work.

The last 15 months of the scoping phase of the Ayahuasca Dialogues has been based on building consensus among all interested groups about the cross-cultural safe use and sustainability of ayahuasca. This originally included some of the signatories of the recent critique. Therefore, for everyone at the ESC, the public criticism has been surprising and difficult to understand. We thought at first it was based on misunderstanding of our approach or message. However, we were wrong. Through continued dialogue with our critics, we realized that we hold significantly different opinions about how the ESC should proceed.

We recognize the wisdom in the public statement by MAPS, which is entirely consistent with private conversations we have had with MAPS Executive Director Rick Doblin, a member of our Board of Directors. We are prepared to more closely align with their recommendations.

We recognize that some of our language on Facebook and Twitter during our Indiegogo campaign, if continued, could have the potential to create unintended negative consequences for ayahuasca drinking communities. For this, we are sorry.

We recognize that some were left with the impression that we thought Amazonian governments should change their policies regarding ayahuasca, which was never our intention. The ESC remains committed to developing evidence of the superiority of Peru’s national recognition of traditional ayahuasca practices as an ideal post-prohibitionist example. We look forward to working with partners to encourage adoption of similar approaches by other governments.

We recognize that the initial way we reported our finances was confusing. During our first year, we thought that including in-kind donations was the best way to reflect the level of support for our work and the value of our personal contributions to the project. Going forward, our financial reporting will always reflect the actual monetary amounts received. We apologize for any confusion. We commit ourselves to providing detailed and transparent accounting of our finances in March 2015.

While we soundly reject the vitriolic tone and ad hominem attacks from a small minority of our critics, we recognize that most critical voices are not coming from a place of anger or personal agendas, but are motivated by our shared goals of ensuring ayahuasca’s continued vibrancy for future generations.

We also recognize that the opposition to aspects of our approach is sustained and passionate among a significant group of experts with Amazonian cultural experience far surpassing our own.

It is with all this in mind that we take the following action:

Honoring the ESC’s commitment to an inclusive process that proactively seeks out all voices, as of today, we begin a pause in all on-the-ground activities, public communications, and fundraising for the Ayahuasca Dialogues until we have more thoroughly assessed all of our potential actions with feedback from our critics and the wider public.
In order to prepare for this process, we politely ask that the wider ayahuasca community reserve judgment until we begin seeking feedback on substantially reoriented approaches in March. At that time, we will make ourselves available to discuss and debate our approaches all in one place on the Ayahuasca.com forums.

Whatever the outcomes of the future months of dialogue, we commit ourselves to work that will have the highest probability of the most positive outcomes for the greatest number of ayahuasca drinkers, the forests, and our communities.

We thank those who, over the last few weeks, have remained open to dialogue with us, even if they assumed we would not hear them. You know who you are. We thank you for sitting with us, for singing with us, and for breathing with us through the purge.

In Humble Service to the Plants,

Joshua Wickerham, ESC Co-Founder and Executive Director
joshua [at] ethnobotanicalcouncil [dot] org

Jonathan Thompson, ESC Co-Founder and Operations Director
jonathan [at] ethnobotanicalcouncil [dot] org

Hey VT, great to see you I've been meaning to read your Nexian articles and hope to find a little time to do so soon

Some assorted thoughts and responses:


Perhaps...but this makes me viscerally uncomfortable precisely because they are the newcomers. While on the one hand this means that it may be possible to intervene "early on" and perhaps mitigate an additional amount of damage, it also serves to create an invisibilizing effect, imo.

That is to say, by focusing on/emphasizing the perceived problems of the ESC, and by presenting an open letter to which a large number of recognized names have lent their signatures, this creates a perception and a dialogue that the ESC is where THE problem lies. In my opinion, we can see some of the predictable, albeit paradoxical, results of this in the Gearin piece, as I mentioned earlier.

Yes, the ESC is new, so again, perhaps it is easier to intervene and intervention will have a greater impact on the actions of this singular organization. Yet, doesn't the fact that MAPS and ICEERS are both older and significantly more entrenched perhaps make them more logical starting points if we really want to challenge these issues on a "cultural" rather than "institutional" scale?

Take for example the fact the fact that MAPS is a fiscal sponsor of the ESC and even published a response to the original critique from its own position. In this dynamic, we can literally see the frame of reference shrunk down to specifically focus on the ESC, when there are many, imo, related and valid critiques that could be offered about MAPS. And what of the roles that many signatories of the original statement have played within the MAPS framework? Are these not also worthy of examination and discussion?

The problem for me, is that when I look at this, I can literally see the reductive elements at play. So while the fact that ESC is new is important, I think we also need to be very conscious of these other components.


Agreed...perhaps the "twist" that I would challenge here is that this should not be a single issue (or organization) critique. Imo, it shouldn't be, first let's target ESC, then let's target X, then Y, then Z. Rather, we should ask, "What is the behavior we want to change/eliminate?" Then we should identify this behavior wholesale, as we see it, and figure out what actions make sense in the different contexts where we find it.


To follow up on my comments about reductionism earlier...this is precisely part of the problem, no? The fact that some organization have established themselves as trusted authorities and then frame critiques in ways that mask their own complicity in that which they are critiquing. Or, again, in the case where individuals who have played roles that support these "trusted authority" organizations offering critiques of the ESC. By all means, offer the critique, but why turn a blind eye to that which you have participated in?


To point out, as a brief aside, reset.me is also a relative newcomer. And aside from myself (and a handful of others here on the Nexus), I have seen next to no critique from the broader communities. In fact, MAPS jumped on board with reset almost right out of the gate, raising numerous questions, and again, this seems like something that should be engaged with by some of the same folks who have worked with MAPS and are critiquing the ESC.

Additionally, I don't think it's so easy to say whether or not "Amber Lyon [is] really threatening indigenous culture in a way that is proportional to what the ESC is trying to do." The reason I would say this is because we have no way of measuring reset's effect on things. We do know that the site is boldly encouraging shamanic tourism, including ayahuasca tourism (but in no way limited to that). We also know that people with little to no psychedelic experience or understanding of ayahuasca are attempting to plan first-time aya tourism trips via the site's forum. We also know that the site makes overblown claims about potential "cures" via ayahuasca and other psychedelics and that at least some of the people seeking out this tourism are explicitly doing it to seek a cure for their illness. To me, that does not make this so cut and dry in assessing the potential for harm.

And as a final aside, I prefer people who are open with their intentions. If I know someone has a market-based approach because they're explicitly telling me they have a market-based approach, that's a hell of a lot easier (for me) to deal with than someone engaged in a market-based approach under the guise of "spiritual" or "ritualistic" or "healing" intentions. I may not be the biggest fan of either approach, but at least in one case, I know straight-up what I'm dealing with and have some sense that the person/group in question is being straight with me.


I think this is an easy answer, but I don't know that it makes it "true"...or at least any truer than a statement along the lines of "To change everything, start anywhere."

I don't mean to give you a hard time and I'll say straight-up that I'm interested in opposing this as a default mode of reasoning in part because I don't agree, but more significantly, because I think we have a greater potential to catch things and effect change if we don't limit ourselves to this model of prioritization.

For example...this critique of the ESC didn't come until quite a while after the two conferences I referenced earlier. The ESC was still in the early incubation stage during Psychedelic Science, iirc. Afaik, no critiques whatsoever have ever been written about those issues with either conference, despite the fact that pretty much all of (or at least many of) the signatories of the ESC critique were present at one or both of them. To me, that is a glaring counterpoint to the notion of "prioritization," especially given the timeline. What do you think?

I agree with you in that I don't think this is easy work, but I shy away from the notion of focusing all or most or significant amounts of energy on the low-hanging fruit. When I look at the list of names that signed on to the ESC statement, I can't help but wonder why none of them have engaged in a similar open letter about any of these other problematic examples. If this is as important as I think it is, and as I understand them to think it is based on the wording of their letter...then their own narrow application of their critiques is doing this issue, on a cultural level, a rather large disservice, imo.

We can't just call into question the problematic aspects we see in that with which we are unfamiliar; we must also challenge them in that with which we are intimately familiar, lest we create a paradigm where we camouflage and hold dear our most reviled constructs.

Howdy Snozz, likewise! I feel like I haven't seen you around the forums much lately. It's great to see you at it again, as always telling it like it is and pushing us all to dig deeper and think harder.

You bring up a lot of excellent points. At the moment I don't have the time to respond thoroughly, but hopefully by later today I'll have some thoughts collected.

Sorcery is a very taboo subject for the indigenous people so I'm not surprised the public hasn't heard about it. Shamans use icaros songs to bring the energy of spirits into their ceremonial space. Shamans that practice sorcery use dark spirits. That's how I would define it. If you would like to learn more about these experiences the ayahuasca forums should help explain it better then I.